id
int64 225
5.32k
| context
stringlengths 2.88k
70.8k
| question
stringlengths 11
194
| answers
dict | is_impossible
bool 1
class |
|---|---|---|---|---|
5,183 | Mucosal Vaccination with Recombinant Lactobacillus casei-Displayed CTA1-Conjugated Consensus Matrix Protein-2 (sM2) Induces Broad Protection against Divergent Influenza Subtypes in BALB/c Mice
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979752/
SHA: efaa556b484fbcd9cc34832ffac53ef3e834e9c0
Authors: Chowdhury, Mohammed Y. E.; Li, Rui; Kim, Jae-Hoon; Park, Min-Eun; Kim, Tae-Hwan; Pathinayake, Prabuddha; Weeratunga, Prasanna; Song, Man Ki; Son, Hwa-Young; Hong, Seung-Pyo; Sung, Moon-Hee; Lee, Jong-Soo; Kim, Chul-Joong
Date: 2014-04-08
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094051
License: cc-by
Abstract: To develop a safe and effective mucosal vaccine against pathogenic influenza viruses, we constructed recombinant Lactobacillus casei strains that express conserved matrix protein 2 with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei) or without (pgsA-sM2/L. casei) cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) on the surface. The surface localization of the fusion protein was verified by cellular fractionation analyses, flow cytometry and immunofluorescence microscopy. Oral and nasal inoculations of recombinant L. casei into mice resulted in high levels of serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) and mucosal IgA. However, the conjugation of cholera toxin subunit A1 induced more potent mucosal, humoral and cell-mediated immune responses. In a challenge test with 10 MLD(50) of A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird /Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) viruses, the recombinant pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei provided better protection against lethal challenges than pgsA-sM2/L. casei, pgsA/L. casei and PBS in mice. These results indicate that mucosal immunization with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-conjugated sM2 protein on its surface is an effective means of eliciting protective immune responses against diverse influenza subtypes.
Text: Vaccination remains most economical and effective means against respiratory diseases caused by influenza viruses [1] . Based on the circulating viruses in the population, trivalent vaccine strains have been developed and are used for the influenza virus protection [2] . The most acceptable current available strategy is the intramuscular administration of inactivated vaccines produced by egg-based manufacturing systems which while effective, are hampered by limited capacity and flexibility [3] . However, vaccine strains must be frequently adapted to match the circulating viruses throughout the world [4] . In addition, the levels of antibody induced by the inactivated vaccine have been observed to decrease by 75% over an 8-month period [2, 5] . Therefore, alternative strategies for developing broadly cross-protective, safe and effective vaccines against influenza viral infections are of prominent importance.
Matrix protein 2 (M2) is highly conserved among influenza A virus strains, indicating that M2 is an attractive target for developing a universal vaccine [6] . In previous studies, various constructs of the M2 vaccine have been developed and tested, including recombinant Escherichia coli (E. coli) expressing M2 fusion protein, adenoviral vectors expressing the M2 protein, plasmid DNA encoding M2 [7] [8] [9] and peptides encoding M2e [11] , each of which was able to elicit protective immune responses in mice. However, the drawback of these M2-based vaccines is their low immunogenicity; additionally, most of them would require intramuscular injections. Therefore, many strategies have been applied focusing on increasing the immunogenicity of M2-based vaccines, for example, fusion of M2 with different carrier molecules like human papilloma virus L protein [12] , keyhole limpet hemocyanin [10] and flagellin [13] . Furthermore, vaccinations with different adjuvants and routes of administration have been applied to evaluate their protection against divergent strains of influenza viruses. Mice immunized mucosally with an M2 or virus like particles (VLPs) adjuvanted with cholera toxin (CT) demonstrated better protection compared to mice subjected to parenteral immunization [14, 15] . However, due to the adverse effects of CT in humans, investigators have attempted to identify nontoxic subunits with adjuvanticity by removing either subunit A or subunit B [16] . E. coli expressing cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) fused with the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus showed the adjuvant effects without any reactogenicity of the A1 subunit in the mucosal vaccine [6] . Although, chemical or genetic conjugation of M2 may not present M2 in its native tetrameric form, extracellularly accessible antigens expressed on the surfaces of bacteria are better recognized by the immune system than those that are intracellular [17] . Thus, choice of delivery vehicle is also an important concern for potential mucosal vaccines.
Recently, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) presenting influenza virus antigens have been studied [3, 18, 19] . For mucosal immunization, LAB is a more attractive delivery system than other live vaccine vectors, such as Shigella, Salmonella, and Listeria [20, 21] . It is considered safe and exhibits an adjuvant-like effect on mucosal and systemic immunity [18, 22, 23] . Anchoring of the target protein to the cell surfaces of LAB is primarily intended to use in mucosal vaccines. The transmembrane protein pgsA is one of the poly-cglutamate synthetase complexes of Bacillus subtilis [17, 24, 25] , which is a well-studied anchor protein is able to fuse the target protein to its C terminus and stabilize the complex by anchoring it in the cell membrane. Since sM2 is a highly conserved and promising target for a universal vaccine and CTA1 is strong mucosal adjuvant, in this study, we developed constructs using a consensus sM2 gene reconstituted from the analysis of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2 influenza viruses (no trans-membrane domain) with or without the fusion of CTA1. To achieve this, we used a novel expression vector that can express a pgsA gene product as an anchoring matrix. Our target antigens, sM2 and CTA1, were displayed on the surface of Lactobacillus casei, and the oral or intranasal administration of recombinant L. casei induced systemic and mucosal immune responses that have the potential to protect against the lethal challenges of divergent influenza subtypes.
A total of 672 female BALB/c mice (5 weeks old) were purchased from Samtako (Seoul, Korea) and housed in ventilated cages. The mice were managed with pelleted feed and tap water ad libitum, maintained in a specific-pathogen-free environment and all efforts were made to minimize suffering following approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of of Bioleaders Corporation, Daejeon, South Korea, protocol number: BSL-ABLS-13-002. Immunizations of animal were conducted in biosafety level (BSL)-2 laboratory facilities. Mice were divided into 6 experimental sets, each consisting of 2 subsets: 1 for oral and 1 for intranasal administration which contained 4 groups each. Out of 6, 4 sets had 14 mice per group. One sets had 17 (3 mice for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry), and the last contained 11 mice per group (3 mice for CTL response).
Concentrations of recombinant L. casei were determined by colony forming units (CFU). In each subset, 2 groups received 10 10 CFU of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, and the remaining two groups received the same concentration of pKV-pgsA/L. casei or PBS in 100 ml orally via intragastric lavage at days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21 to 23. Similarly, 10 9 CFU of recombinant cells were administered in 20 ml suspensions into the nostrils of lightly anesthetized mice on days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21. Blood samples were collected from the retro-orbital plexus at days 21, 14 and 28; sera were separated by centrifugation for 5 minutes at 12,0006g and stored at 220uC until analysis. At day 28, 3 mice in each group were randomly sacrificed to collect IgA sample from lungs and intestine and stored at 270uC until analysis. Spleens were collected aseptically at day 28 for the analysis of the CTL response randomly from 3 mice of one set. The rest of the mice from the same set were maintained for 6 months from the date of the last boosting to measure the long-lasting immune responses and protection efficacy.
The avian influenza viruses A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/ Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) used in this study were kindly provided by Dr. Young-Ki Choi (College of Medicine and Medical Research Institute, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea). All viruses were propagated in the allantoic fluid of 10-day-old chicken embryos, and 50% mouse lethal doses (MLD 50 ) were determined in 8-week-old naive BALB/ c mice. Ether narcosis-anesthetized mice were intranasally infected with 10 times the MLD 50 of challenge viruses in 20 ml of PBS. Six mice in each group were sacrificed on 3 and 5 dpi to check virus titer in lungs and other 5 mice remained in each group have been used for survival. Mice were monitored every alternate day at fixed time point for measuring the weight loss and survival. Mice were euthanized if moribund, i.e. weight loss, ruffled fur, shivering, tachypnea, respiratory distress, hypothermia and poorly responsive to external stimuli, remaining were considered as survival number. After final monitoring, all the survived mice were humanely euthanized using CO 2 inhalation for 5 minutes.
At 180 days after the final vaccination, mice from one set were challenged with H5N2 for measuring the long lasting immune responses. All challenge tests were conducted inside an approved BSL-3+ facility under appropriate conditions. Bacterial Strains and Cloning for the Construction of Recombinant Plasmid PgsA-sM2/L. casei and PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei In this study, E. coli JM83 was used for cloning and L. casei L525 was used for surface expression of the target protein. These bacteria were grown in LB and MRS media, respectively. The plasmid pKV-Pald-PgsA, harboring the pgsA genes of Bacillus subtilis, was used to construct the surface display plasmid, which was a kind gift from the Bioleaders Corporation (Daejeon, South Korea). A gene encoding the consensus sequence of M2 spanning the residues of the extracellular and cytoplasmic domains without the transmembrane domain of influenza virus was generated. The consensus sequences were created based on the most common amino acids in each position of the alignment of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2; then, they were synthesized and used as templates for the construction of the plasmids pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei by cloning, as described previously [26, 27] . The sM2 gene was modified by adding a Kpn I site at the 59 terminal and Sal I at the 39 terminal for cloning. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed to amplify the gene using the primer pair 59-GGGGTACCTCATTATTAACA-39, and 59-ACGTCGACT-CATTATTCAAGTTCAATAATG AC-39. Similarly, a BamH I site at the 59 terminal and a Kpn I site at the 39 terminal end were added to the CTA1 gene using primers 59-CGGGATCCAAT-GATGATAAGTTATAT-39 and 59-GGGT ACCCGAT-GATCTTGGAGC ATT-39. The modified genes were ligated into the T Easy Vector (Invitrogen, Seoul, Korea). Genes were then digested with Kpn I-Sal I for sM2 and BamH I-Kpn I for CTA1. The digested sM2 was ligated to the plasmid vector pKV-pgsA for the construction of pKV-pgsA-sM2. Similarly, CTA1 was ligated for the construction of pKV-pgsA-CTA1-sM2. The ligated products were transformed into E. coli JM83 competent cells, as previously described, using an electroporation method [17] . The profiles of the recombinant plasmids were confirmed by restriction endonuclease digestion and DNA sequencing (Solgent, Seoul, Korea). After confirmation, the plasmids were transformed into L. casei L525 by electroporation and named pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei.
The recombinant L. casei containing pgsA, pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 genes were grown at 30uC for 48 hours. Cells were harvested by centrifugation at 6,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, followed by washing two times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Bacterial lyses were performed by sonication and centrifuged at 12,0006g for 20 minutes at 4uC. Cell wall and cytoplasmic fractions were separated by centrifugation at 25,0006g at 4uC for 2 hours. Pellets (cell wall) were resuspended in 100 ml of 1% sarcosol containing 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) as a protease inhibitor. Fractions were analyzed by western blotting, as described previously. For the immune detection of fusion proteins, the membranes were probed with rabbit anti-cholera toxin (1:2000, Abcam, UK), rabbit anti-pgsA (1:1000) and rabbit anti-M2 (1:1000) antibodies. The rabbit anti-pgsA and rabbit anti-M2 antibodies used in this experiment were generated by the i.m. inoculation of KLH-conjugated pgsA or M2 peptide in rabbit, respectively, two times at 2 weeks-interval. The membranes were reacted with a 1:10,000 dilution of anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (IgG HRP). Finally, the target proteins were detected using the WEST-ZOL plus Western Blot Detection System (iNtRON Biotechnology, Gyeonggi-do, Korea) and visualized by enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) [17, 26, 28] .
To investigate the expression of sM2 or CTA1-sM2 on the surface of L. casei, recombinant L. casei were grown in 30uC for 48 hours in the MRS broth. Bacteria were harvested by centrifugation at 5,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, washed three times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline containing 0.01% Tween-20 (PBST) and probed with polyclonal rabbit anti-M2 or rabbit anti-CT antibody overnight. Following another washing, the cells were treated with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)conjugated anti-rabbit IgG antibodies (Burlingame, CA, USA) for 2 hours. Finally, 10,000 cells were analyzed by flow cytometry (Becton Dickinson, Oxnard, CA, USA). For the immunofluorescence, cells were prepared under the same condition described for the flow cytometry. The pgsA/L. casei was used as a negative control and Immunofluoresence analysis was examined using a Carl Zeiss Axioskop 2 fluorescence microscope.
ELISA Antibody titers were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using serum or mucosal samples from vaccinated mice. First, 96-well immunosorbent plates (Nunc) were incubated with 300 ng/well purified sM2 or CTA1 proteins at 4uC overnight. The recombinant sM2 and CTA1 proteins used in this study were purified from E. coli. Next, the wells were blocked with 10% skim milk for 2 hours in RT, washed five times with PBST, treated with diluted serum samples (1:200) in triplicate for detecting IgG and undiluted tissue homogenized supernatant for detecting local IgA and incubated for 2 hours at 37uC. After washing three times, goat anti-mouse IgG HRP (1:1000, sigma) or anti-mouse IgA was added to each well and incubated for an additional 2 hours at 37uC. Following another round of washing, the plates were reacted with the substrate solution containing tetramethylbenzidine and H 2 O 2 and allowed to precede the reaction for 10 minutes. After adding the stop solution 2N-H 2 SO 4 , the optical density (OD) was measured at 450 nm using an ELISA autoreader (Molecular devices).
The development and counting of cytokines were performed by ELISPOTs, as described previously [31, 32] . Briefly, the day before the isolation of splenocytes, ELISPOT 96-well plates were coated with monoclonal anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 capture antibodies (5 mg/ml) in PBS and incubated at 4uC overnight. The plates were washed with PBS, and 200 ml/well of blocking solution containing complete RPMI 1640 medium and 10% fetal bovine serum, was added (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and incubated for 2 hours in RT. Spleens from the vaccinated mice were isolated aseptically and added at 5610 4 cells/well in media containing sM2 protein, M2 peptide (SLLTEVETPTRNGWECKCSD) (1 mg/well), only medium (negative control), or 5 mg/ml phytohemagglutinin (positive control, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). After adding cells and stimulators, the plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37uC with 5% CO 2 . The plates were sequentially treated with biotinylated anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 antibodies, streptavidinhorseradish peroxidase, and substrate solution. Finally, the spots were counted using an ImmunoScan Entry analyzer (Cellular Technology, Shaker Heights, USA).
The lungs were collected aseptically, and virus titers were determined by 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID 50 ), as described previously [33] . Briefly, lung tissues were homogenized in 500 ml of PBS containing antibiotics (penicillin, and streptomycin) and antimycotics (Fungizone) compounds (Gibco, Grand Island, NY, USA). Mechanically homogenized lung samples were centrifuged (15 minutes, 12,0006g and 4uC) to remove the cellular debris before their storage at 280uC. MDCK cells were inoculated with a 10-fold serially diluted sample and incubated at 37uC in a humid atmosphere of 5% CO 2 for an hour. After absorption, the media was removed, and overlay medium containing L-1-tosylamido-2-phenylethyl chloromethyl ketone (TPCK) trypsin (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rockford, USA) was added to the infected cells and incubated for 72 hours. Viral cytopathic effects were observed daily, and the titers were determined by the HA test. The viral titer of each sample was expressed as 50% tissue infected doses using the Reed-Muench method [34] .
For histopathology, lung tissues were collected at 5 dpi from ether narcosis-anesthetized mice. Tissues were immediately fixed in 10% formalin containing neutral buffer, embedded in paraffin wax, sectioned at 4-6 mm thickness using a microtome machine, mounted onto slides, and stained with eosin stain. Histopathological changes were examined by light microscopy, as previously described [29, 30, 35] . Furthermore, slides were stained using an immunoperoxidase method with an antibody (rabbit anti-M2, 1:500) directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus. A Goat-anti-rabbit IgG HRP (1:2000, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) was used as the secondary antibody for the detection of virus infected cells in respective tissues [57] .
Data are presented as the means 6 standard deviations (S.D.) and are representative of at least three independent experiments. Differences between groups were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), and means were compared by Student's t-test. P-values less than 0.05 were regarded as significant. Results for percent initial body weight were also compared by using Student's t test.
Comparison of survival was done by log-rank test using GraphPad Prism 6 version.
The pgsA-expressing vector was used to construct plasmids containing the highly conserved consensus sM2 gene, with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2) or without (pgsA-sM2) the cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1, Fig. 1A ). Plasmids were transformed into L. casei cells. The expression levels of pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were monitored by immunoblotting using anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies (data not shown).
To determine the cellular localization of the sM2 and CTA1 proteins expressed on the surface of L. casei via the cell wall anchor protein pgsA, membrane and cytoplasmic fractions were subjected to western blot analysis. As expected, both pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins were detected by anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies in the membrane, not in cytoplasmic fractions (Fig. 1B, lane 2, 3 and 4) . Immunoreactions were performed with anti-pgsA, and bands representing the size of the fused proteins pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were detected, while during the reactions with anti-M2 or anti-CT antibodies, no other bands were detected (Fig. 1B, lane 3 and 4) . This finding may have resulted from the degradation that occurs during the membrane fractionation procedure.
Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and immunofluorescence labeling of the cells were used to verify the localization of the fusion pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 protein on the surface of L. casei. Flow cytometric analysis using rabbit anti-M2 and anti-CT antibodies revealed increase level of fluorescence intensity of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells, compared to that of control L. casei cells (Fig. 1C ). Immunofluorescence microscopy also showed recombinant bacteria harboring pgsA-sM2 or pgsA-CTA1-sM2 that immunostained positive for sM2 and CTA1, but this was not found in control cells. These results demonstrated that recombinant L. casei could efficiently display the sM2 and CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins on the surface, using pgsA as a membrane anchor protein.
Immune Responses Induced by Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface Displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2
Preliminary experiment was conducted to determine the doses and schedule of pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei vaccine candidate on influenza virus protection (data not shown). To characterize the immunogenicity of the L. casei surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1conjugated sM2, BALB/c mice were immunized nasally (10 9 cells/20 ml dose) or orally (10 10 cells/100 ml dose) with recombinant live pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei bacteria. As a negative control, mice were immunized with L. casei harboring the parental plasmid pKV-pgsA (pgsA/L. casei) and PBS. Serum samples were collected at 0, 14 and 28 days and analyzed by ELISA, using sM2 and CTA1 proteins (purified from E. coli) as a coating antigen. After the first series of immunization, comparatively low levels of serum IgG were detected both in the i.n. and orally immunized group. However, high antibody levels were detected shortly after the second series of immunization, and the CTA1-conjugated sM2 group induced serum IgG at significant level, compared to sM2-only group and negative controls ( Fig. 2A and B) . Although the conjugation of CTA1 with sM2 was expected to have an adjuvant function only, a significant level of anti-CTA1 antibodies was detected in both the nasal and oral vaccinations ( Fig. 2A and B right panel) . In comparison with the oral group, the nasally immunized group showed higher levels of serum IgG specific to both sM2 and CTA1.
To assess the mucosal immune responses, the local IgA levels were determined by ELISA. Lung and intestinal tissues were collected at day 28 of immunization and examined using sM2 protein as a coating antigen. In both routes of vaccination, pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced significantly increased levels of sM2specific mucosal IgA compared to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups. However, as expected, higher levels of antibody titers were detected at the site of inoculation than at the remote site. A similar pattern of antibody responses was observed for both routes of immunization, in which the pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei groups dominated ( Fig. 2C and D) . These data demonstrated that cholera toxin subunit A1-conjugated sM2 resulted in significant enhancements to the sM2-specific IgG and mucosal IgA levels compared with sM2 alone or with controls immunized with pgsA/ L. casei or PBS.
Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2 Stimulated M2-specific Cellular Immune Response
To determine whether mucosal vaccination with L. casei surfacedisplayed sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 could induce cellular immunity, IFN-c and IL-4 ELISPOT were performed. Splenocytes from vaccinated mice were stimulated with 10 mg/ml of recombinant sM2 protein or M2 peptide, and the cytokine ELISPOTs were developed. The spots were counted to measure the differences in the CTL responses between the groups. Cells from the mice immunized i.n. with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed significant levels of IFN-c in response to stimulation with sM2 protein and M2 peptide (Fig. 3A) . Similarly, we observed that i.n. administered groups both for pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed detectable levels of IL-4 secreting splenocytes following stimulation with either sM2 protein or M2 peptide (Fig. 3B) . IFN-c and IL-4 secreting cells were also observed in mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 3C ) although their levels were lower than i.n. group and were not significant. Control group immunized with pgsA/L. casei showed background spot level for both in intranasal and oral groups. These findings indicate that highly conserved sM2 can induce M2-specific IFN-c and IL-4 secreting T cell responses, while mucosal delivery through L. casei and CTA1 conjugation with sM2 enhanced the cell mediated immunity, which may contribute to broadening the protective immunity.
M2 is known as a potential target for the development of broad spectrum influenza vaccine with minimum variability [36, 37] . To confirm the variability of sM2 sequences of the challenged viruses used in this study, we compared the sM2 of influenza subtypes available from U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) with our consensus sM2 sequence particularly the whole conserved ecto and some portion of cytoplasmic domain (CD) although entire CD was included in vaccine construct (Table 1) . We found that, viruses used in this study contain 0-8 mismatched amino acids among the amino acids of sM2 compared in this study. To evaluate the efficacy of the sM2 vaccine, week after the final immunization, mice were challenged i.n. with the 10 MLD 50 of A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2) influenza virus subtypes that was homologous to the consensus sM2 sequence. Mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/ L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed 40 and 60% protection respectively. Similarly, i.n. immunization groups conferred 40 and 80%, against the lethal infection with highly virulent H5N2 virus. In contrast, none of the unimmunized mice survived after lethal infection ( Fig. 4A and B, right panel) . Morbidity was increased in the mice immunized via oral route, whereas mice that received i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost ,20% of their initial body weight and started recovering by 9 day post infection (dpi) and had completely recovered by day 13 (Fig. 4A and B, left panel) .
We next evaluated the protection efficiency of sM2 vaccine candidate against A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), which contains 8 mismatched amino acids relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Sets of vaccinated mice were challenged with 10 MLD 50 of the H1N1 virus. As shown in figure 4C and D, mice immunized by the The mice were grouped as mentioned in materials and methods and received oral or nasal administrations, according to the schedule. Arrows indicated the immunization routes and periods of pgsA/L. casei, pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells. Sera were collected at days 0, 14 and 28; samples from the lungs and intestines were collected at day 28 after immunization. A week after the final immunization, spleens were excised from 3 mice in each group, with one set for CTL analysis. Two or 24 weeks after the last immunization, all mice were challenged with a lethal dose of influenza subtypes through intranasal route and monitored for 13 days. On days 3 and 5 post infection, the lungs were excised from 3 mice in each group to determine the virus titer. On 5 dpi, the mice from one set were sacrificed for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g001 CTA1-sM2 Induces Protective Immunity to Pathogenic Influenza A Viruses PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org i.n route exhibited a higher level of protection than the orally immunized groups, and mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei showed a significantly higher level of protection compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, right panel) . Unimmunized mice lost up to 40% of their body weight and died by 9 dpi. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost approximately 10% of their body weight, whereas mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei lost .20% of their initial body weight by 9 dpi and recovered more slowly than mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, left panel) .
Another set of vaccinated mice were infected with A/Chicken/ Korea/116/2004(H9N2) to check the range of protection ability of sM2 vaccine induced immune responses. The sM2 sequence of H9N2 contains 2 mismatched relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. The mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight losses and gradual recovery compared to those of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and the unimmunized mice for both the i.n and oral routes (Fig. 4E and F left panel) . None of the unimmunized mice survived, whereas 100% and 80% of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei via the i.n. and oral routes survived, respectively. The survival rates of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei were 80% and 60% for the i.n. and oral routes, respectively ( Fig. 4E and F, right panel) .
The breadth of protection of the sM2 vaccine against divergent influenza subtypes was also evaluated. Set of immunized mice were challenged with high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A/ EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), which contains 2 amino acid mismatches relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Mice immunized via the i.n. and oral routes with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed higher protection efficacies, 80% and 60%, respectively, compared with mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei, for which the rates were 60% and 20%, respectively ( Fig. 4G and H, right panel) . Regarding morbidity, mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed lower morbidity than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4G and H, left panel) . One more set of vaccinated mice were challenged with the A/Aquatic bird/ Korea/W44/2005 (H7N3) virus, which contains 1 mismatch relative to the consensus sM2 sequence, and the body weight and survival were observed for 13 dpi. As shown in figure 4I and J, unimmunized mice lost as much as 30% of their body weight than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4I and J, left panel) . Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei through the i.n route showed significantly higher level of protection against the H7N3 influenza virus than the other groups ( Fig. 4I and J, right panel) . Taken together, the results indicate that i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced immune responses that conferred significant levels of protection against divergent subtypes of influenza viruses containing mismatched amino acids ranging from 0 to 8 of the consensus sM2, regardless of whether it was complete or partial.
Virus titers in the lungs of challenged mice were measured to estimate replication at 3 and 5 dpi. Mice were immunized via the i.n and oral routes with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei and challenged with the H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 or H7N3 influenza subtypes. On 3 and 5 dpi, 3 mice were sacrificed randomly from each group, and their lung virus titers were measured using the TCID 50 method. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei had lower titers at 3 dpi and had significantly reduced viral replication at 5 dpi compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or the control groups at the same time ( Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced viral titers in the lungs were observed in groups of mice immunized via the i.n route relative to the mice immunized via the oral route, particularly at day 3 post infections (Fig. 5) . These reduced titers may be due to routes of vaccination and challenge being the same, and the titers correlated with the survival results for lethal infections with H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 and H7N3. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the consensus sM2 protein fused with CTA1 afforded better protection than sM2, and the i.n route was more potent than the oral route of immunization with regard to protection against a lethal challenge of divergent influenza subtypes.
Histopathology and immunohistochemistry were performed to corroborate the lung virus titer findings. At 5 dpi, lungs were randomly collected from each group of one set, fixed and stained with eosin before being examined under a light microscope. As shown in figure 5K , clear signs of profound pulmonary inflammation were observed in the lungs of mice treated with PBS or pgsA/L. casei for both the oral and i.n routes of administration, whereas the lungs of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed no remarkable pulmonary inflammation compare to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei-treated mice (Fig. 5K, middle and left panel) . For immunohistochemistry, immunoperoxidase method with an antibody directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus was used for the detection of virus infected cells in the respective tissues. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. As shown in figure 5K, at 5 days p.i., numerous virusinfected cells were detected in control or pgsA-sM2/L. casei vaccinated mice, whereas highly reduced number of antigen positive cells were found in the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, both in i.n. and orally immunized group (Fig. 5K right panel) . These results indicate that mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei developed immune responses that are strong enough to inhibit virus replication, which promotes the survival of mice after a lethal infection by influenza A.
The PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei Vaccination Induced Longlasting Cross Protection
The duration of protection is an important criterion for a potential vaccine. Thus, the longevity of the immunity induced by sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 were investigated by detecting serum IgG and mucosal IgA by ELISA. Significantly increase levels of sM2-specific serum IgG as well as lung and intestinal IgA were observed 180 days after vaccination ( Fig. 6A and C) compare to PBS and pgsA/L. casei groups. Mice were challenged with A/ Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), and the body weight changes and survival were monitored until 13 dpi. The unimmunized mice showed .30% body weight loss (Fig. 6B and D left panel) and died by day 9 post infection in both the oral and i.n. groups. In contrast, the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight loss, which was recovered by 13 dpi; 80% survived in the i.n. immunized group (Fig. 6B right panel) , and 60% survived in the orally immunized group (Fig. 6D right panel) . This result indicates that the CTA1conjugated sM2 mucosal vaccine conferred protection against a lethal infection 6 months after the final immunization.
The mucosal immune system is the first immunological barrier against the pathogens that invade the body via the mucosal surface. Thus, the induction of mucosal immunity is necessary to ensure protection against multiple subtypes of influenza A virus. A respiratory virus, influenza A is responsible for annual seasonal epidemics worldwide and, occasionally, pandemics, which are caused by emerging novel subtypes/strains derived through reassortment with avian or porcine viruses. Current influenza vaccines provide strain-specific protection only. Thus, it is crucial to establish a broadly cross-protective influenza vaccine. Antigens that are well conserved among influenza A viruses are considered promising targets for the induction of cross-protection against these different subtypes. However, the goal should be the development of a first line of defense by effectively eliminating pathogens at the mucosal surface. Influenza matrix protein-2 (M2) is relatively well conserved among the influenza subtypes and can be considered a promising influenza vaccine antigen [30] . It consists of the following three structural domains: a 24-amino-acid extracellular domain, a 19-amino-acid transmembrane domain, and a 54-amino-acid cytoplasmic tail domain [39, 40] . The extracellular and cytoplasmic domains, which are well conserved among influenza viruses and play an important role in viral assembly and morphogenesis, were used in this study. Here, we developed sM2 consensus derived from the analysis of sequences of H5N1, H1N1 and H9N2 subtypes in the database. Considering the previous findings that extracellular domain particularly (aa, 1-13) is highly conserved among the influenza virus subtypes and recognized as epitope for the induction of monoclonal antibodies, which could protect influenza virus infection [56] , sM2 backbone sequence from the H5N1 virus were used. For the possible homology among other subtypes we changed at the position of 14 (E-G) and 18 (R-K) and kept unchanged the conserved epitope (aa, 1-13). As shown in sequence alignment, sM2 of consensus sequence has 0-8 mismatches among the subtypes used in this study (Table 1) .
Moreover, the incorporation of an adjuvant is considered essential to boost the interaction of the vaccine with the mucosal immune system [41] . Various adjuvants, such as liposomes, nanoparticles, and immunostimulating complexes (ISCOMs), have been studied and were found to improve the immune response [42] , but their efficacies were not optimal. Despite its potential as a mucosal adjuvant [43] , the use of cholera toxin (CT) in vaccines is limited by its innate toxicity. Thus, the toxicity of CT would have to be separated from its adjuvanticity before it could be used as a vaccine adjuvant. Studies have shown that constructs consisting of M2e fused with cholera toxin subunit A1 along with a strong ADPribosylating agent and a dimer of the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus protein A vaccine elicited complete protection and reduced morbidity [6, 44] . CTA1 retains the adjuvant function of CT without its toxic side effects, such as reactogenicity at the site of its administration and binding to or accumulation in the nervous tissues [45] . Based on previous findings, it has been hypothesized that the consensus sM2 fragment, when fused with the potent mucosal adjuvant CTA1, may induce broad protective immunity against divergent subtypes of influenza virus. In this study, we used the whole 22-kDa CTA1 protein (an ADP ribosyltransferase), which consists of three distinct subdomains: CTA11 (residues 1 to 132), CTA12 (residues 133 to 161), and CTA13 (residues 162 to 192). It has been reported that CTA1 lacking CTB has strong adjuvant activities without any toxicity. CTA1 enhances the IgA and IgG antibody responses, as well as CTL activity [47] .
For the development of a universal mucosal influenza vaccine with a conserved sM2 peptide and potent adjuvant CTA1, recombinant L. casei displaying sM2 fused with or without CTA1
The lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed clear alveoli without inflammatory cell infiltration, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control mice, both of which revealed features of severe pneumonitis (middle and left panel). Reduced number of viral antigen were detected in lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control revealed features of severe pneumonitis with increase virus antigen (right panel). Micrographs are representative for each treatment group at a magnification of 200X. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. In lung titers, bars denote mean 6 S.D. The asterisk indicates a significant difference between pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei and other groups (*P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g005 were constructed for mucosal delivery by the widely used live vaccine vehicle LAB [38] . The pgsA gene used in this study is an anchor for display on the surface of LAB which is derived from the pgsBCA enzyme complex of Bacillus subtilis and consists of transmembrane domain near its N-terminus with the domain located on the outside of the cell membrane. Thus, pgsA is able to cross the cell wall and display the heterologous protein fused to its C-terminus [17] .
The developed vaccines were tested through two major routes. We found that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei was able to induce a significantly higher level of sM2-specific serum IgG ( Fig. 2A and B ) and mucosal IgA (Fig. 2C and D) compared to pgsA-sM2/L. casei, and conferring protection against divergent influenza subtypes of both phylogenetic group 1 (H1, H5, H9) and group 2 (H7) [46] (Fig. 4) . This study also revealed that i.n. administration was superior to the oral route of vaccination, which is consistent with other observations [48] . There may be two possible reasons to explain this phenomenon. First, the challenge route is the same as that of the vaccination; specific mucosal IgA can prevent viral colonization in the respiratory tract. Second, the volume of the inocula was 5 times lower than that for oral inoculation, which may have allowed the concentrated form of the antigen to be presented to immune cells. Because greater levels of serum IgG and mucosal IgA were detected in intranasally immunized mice than in those immunized orally (Fig. 2) , an alternative explanation could be that the antigens are processed and/or presented differently to immune cells in the two mucosal compartments. Importantly, our study demonstrated for the first time that mucosal immunization with the LAB surface-displayed CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate induced broad protection against challenge with divergent influenza subtypes.
However, the mechanism by which Abs against sM2 mediated this broad protection is not fully understood. Previous studies have demonstrated that Abs to the N-terminus of M2e, particularly positions 1-10, inhibited the replication of the influenza A virus [49, 50] . Other studies revealed that anti-M2e IgG-mediated cellular cytotoxicity or phagocytosis can induce the removal of infected cells before progeny virus budding and spread [54, 55] which is supporting our findings of lung virus titer and immunohistochemistry data detected at 5 dpi in our challenge experiments. Therefore, in this study, combination of those responses and Abs to the N-terminus of the sM2 sequence which is conserved among the challenge viruses (Table 1 ) may protect the divergent influenza subtypes after mucosal immunization with the recombinant LAB CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate. Moreover, the cellular immune response plays an important role in controlling viral replication. We examined the Th1-type (IFN-c) and Th2-type (IL-4) cytokine responses by the ELISPOT assay. Significantly higher levels of IFN-c were detected in response to stimulation with both the sM2 protein and M2 peptide in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei compared to the levels in mice in the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups ( Fig. 3A and C) . Similarly, substantially high levels of IL-4 were observed in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei upon stimulation with the sM2 protein and M2 peptide ( Fig. 3B and D) . These results further support the findings that the antibodies and cell-mediated cytotoxicity were specific to the M2 antigen and that their anti-viral activities were induced by monomeric M2, three copies of M2 fused with ASP-1 [34, 51, 52] . Together, these results indicate that sM2 adjuvanted with fused CTA1 induced immune responses in mice, which protected them from divergent influenza subtypes. In this regard, our results have significance for the use of CTA1, which has adjuvant function, in vaccine candidates.
As clinical protection is not the only parameter by which vaccine performance is assessed, we evaluated the immunogenicity of the recombinant LAB vaccine on the basis of other parameters, such as the reduction of pathological lesions and virus shedding. In this study, low titers of the challenge virus were titrated from the lungs after vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, whereas challenge virus could be detected at higher titers in the mock mice and those vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced gross and histopathological lesions consistent with viral infection are the primary parameters indicative of influenza vaccine efficacy. Here, we demonstrated that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei remarkably limited the severity of the damage by inhibiting viral replication and the accumulation of inflammatory cells and virus antigen in the lung alveolar tissues, relative to the severity in the unimmunized mice and the mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5K) .
Our study further demonstrated, for the first time, that recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-sM2 induced long-lasting immunity and conferred protection against lethal infections by influenza, even at 6 months after the final vaccination (Fig. 6) , which is important for any successful vaccine. Similar results were observed in previous studies, in which M2 VLP conferred longterm immunity and cross protection and the antibodies in the sera and mucosal sites were long lived [53, 54] .
In conclusion, our findings revealed that the mucosal immunization of mice with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated sM2 can induce systemic and local, as well as cellmediated, immune responses against divergent influenza virus subtypes. Thus, the recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated consensus sM2 mucosal vaccine may be a promising vaccine candidate for influenza pandemic preparedness. | What is the most effective treatment against influenza? | {
"answer_start": [
1892
],
"text": [
"Vaccination"
]
} | false |
5,184 | Mucosal Vaccination with Recombinant Lactobacillus casei-Displayed CTA1-Conjugated Consensus Matrix Protein-2 (sM2) Induces Broad Protection against Divergent Influenza Subtypes in BALB/c Mice
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979752/
SHA: efaa556b484fbcd9cc34832ffac53ef3e834e9c0
Authors: Chowdhury, Mohammed Y. E.; Li, Rui; Kim, Jae-Hoon; Park, Min-Eun; Kim, Tae-Hwan; Pathinayake, Prabuddha; Weeratunga, Prasanna; Song, Man Ki; Son, Hwa-Young; Hong, Seung-Pyo; Sung, Moon-Hee; Lee, Jong-Soo; Kim, Chul-Joong
Date: 2014-04-08
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094051
License: cc-by
Abstract: To develop a safe and effective mucosal vaccine against pathogenic influenza viruses, we constructed recombinant Lactobacillus casei strains that express conserved matrix protein 2 with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei) or without (pgsA-sM2/L. casei) cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) on the surface. The surface localization of the fusion protein was verified by cellular fractionation analyses, flow cytometry and immunofluorescence microscopy. Oral and nasal inoculations of recombinant L. casei into mice resulted in high levels of serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) and mucosal IgA. However, the conjugation of cholera toxin subunit A1 induced more potent mucosal, humoral and cell-mediated immune responses. In a challenge test with 10 MLD(50) of A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird /Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) viruses, the recombinant pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei provided better protection against lethal challenges than pgsA-sM2/L. casei, pgsA/L. casei and PBS in mice. These results indicate that mucosal immunization with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-conjugated sM2 protein on its surface is an effective means of eliciting protective immune responses against diverse influenza subtypes.
Text: Vaccination remains most economical and effective means against respiratory diseases caused by influenza viruses [1] . Based on the circulating viruses in the population, trivalent vaccine strains have been developed and are used for the influenza virus protection [2] . The most acceptable current available strategy is the intramuscular administration of inactivated vaccines produced by egg-based manufacturing systems which while effective, are hampered by limited capacity and flexibility [3] . However, vaccine strains must be frequently adapted to match the circulating viruses throughout the world [4] . In addition, the levels of antibody induced by the inactivated vaccine have been observed to decrease by 75% over an 8-month period [2, 5] . Therefore, alternative strategies for developing broadly cross-protective, safe and effective vaccines against influenza viral infections are of prominent importance.
Matrix protein 2 (M2) is highly conserved among influenza A virus strains, indicating that M2 is an attractive target for developing a universal vaccine [6] . In previous studies, various constructs of the M2 vaccine have been developed and tested, including recombinant Escherichia coli (E. coli) expressing M2 fusion protein, adenoviral vectors expressing the M2 protein, plasmid DNA encoding M2 [7] [8] [9] and peptides encoding M2e [11] , each of which was able to elicit protective immune responses in mice. However, the drawback of these M2-based vaccines is their low immunogenicity; additionally, most of them would require intramuscular injections. Therefore, many strategies have been applied focusing on increasing the immunogenicity of M2-based vaccines, for example, fusion of M2 with different carrier molecules like human papilloma virus L protein [12] , keyhole limpet hemocyanin [10] and flagellin [13] . Furthermore, vaccinations with different adjuvants and routes of administration have been applied to evaluate their protection against divergent strains of influenza viruses. Mice immunized mucosally with an M2 or virus like particles (VLPs) adjuvanted with cholera toxin (CT) demonstrated better protection compared to mice subjected to parenteral immunization [14, 15] . However, due to the adverse effects of CT in humans, investigators have attempted to identify nontoxic subunits with adjuvanticity by removing either subunit A or subunit B [16] . E. coli expressing cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) fused with the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus showed the adjuvant effects without any reactogenicity of the A1 subunit in the mucosal vaccine [6] . Although, chemical or genetic conjugation of M2 may not present M2 in its native tetrameric form, extracellularly accessible antigens expressed on the surfaces of bacteria are better recognized by the immune system than those that are intracellular [17] . Thus, choice of delivery vehicle is also an important concern for potential mucosal vaccines.
Recently, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) presenting influenza virus antigens have been studied [3, 18, 19] . For mucosal immunization, LAB is a more attractive delivery system than other live vaccine vectors, such as Shigella, Salmonella, and Listeria [20, 21] . It is considered safe and exhibits an adjuvant-like effect on mucosal and systemic immunity [18, 22, 23] . Anchoring of the target protein to the cell surfaces of LAB is primarily intended to use in mucosal vaccines. The transmembrane protein pgsA is one of the poly-cglutamate synthetase complexes of Bacillus subtilis [17, 24, 25] , which is a well-studied anchor protein is able to fuse the target protein to its C terminus and stabilize the complex by anchoring it in the cell membrane. Since sM2 is a highly conserved and promising target for a universal vaccine and CTA1 is strong mucosal adjuvant, in this study, we developed constructs using a consensus sM2 gene reconstituted from the analysis of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2 influenza viruses (no trans-membrane domain) with or without the fusion of CTA1. To achieve this, we used a novel expression vector that can express a pgsA gene product as an anchoring matrix. Our target antigens, sM2 and CTA1, were displayed on the surface of Lactobacillus casei, and the oral or intranasal administration of recombinant L. casei induced systemic and mucosal immune responses that have the potential to protect against the lethal challenges of divergent influenza subtypes.
A total of 672 female BALB/c mice (5 weeks old) were purchased from Samtako (Seoul, Korea) and housed in ventilated cages. The mice were managed with pelleted feed and tap water ad libitum, maintained in a specific-pathogen-free environment and all efforts were made to minimize suffering following approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of of Bioleaders Corporation, Daejeon, South Korea, protocol number: BSL-ABLS-13-002. Immunizations of animal were conducted in biosafety level (BSL)-2 laboratory facilities. Mice were divided into 6 experimental sets, each consisting of 2 subsets: 1 for oral and 1 for intranasal administration which contained 4 groups each. Out of 6, 4 sets had 14 mice per group. One sets had 17 (3 mice for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry), and the last contained 11 mice per group (3 mice for CTL response).
Concentrations of recombinant L. casei were determined by colony forming units (CFU). In each subset, 2 groups received 10 10 CFU of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, and the remaining two groups received the same concentration of pKV-pgsA/L. casei or PBS in 100 ml orally via intragastric lavage at days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21 to 23. Similarly, 10 9 CFU of recombinant cells were administered in 20 ml suspensions into the nostrils of lightly anesthetized mice on days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21. Blood samples were collected from the retro-orbital plexus at days 21, 14 and 28; sera were separated by centrifugation for 5 minutes at 12,0006g and stored at 220uC until analysis. At day 28, 3 mice in each group were randomly sacrificed to collect IgA sample from lungs and intestine and stored at 270uC until analysis. Spleens were collected aseptically at day 28 for the analysis of the CTL response randomly from 3 mice of one set. The rest of the mice from the same set were maintained for 6 months from the date of the last boosting to measure the long-lasting immune responses and protection efficacy.
The avian influenza viruses A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/ Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) used in this study were kindly provided by Dr. Young-Ki Choi (College of Medicine and Medical Research Institute, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea). All viruses were propagated in the allantoic fluid of 10-day-old chicken embryos, and 50% mouse lethal doses (MLD 50 ) were determined in 8-week-old naive BALB/ c mice. Ether narcosis-anesthetized mice were intranasally infected with 10 times the MLD 50 of challenge viruses in 20 ml of PBS. Six mice in each group were sacrificed on 3 and 5 dpi to check virus titer in lungs and other 5 mice remained in each group have been used for survival. Mice were monitored every alternate day at fixed time point for measuring the weight loss and survival. Mice were euthanized if moribund, i.e. weight loss, ruffled fur, shivering, tachypnea, respiratory distress, hypothermia and poorly responsive to external stimuli, remaining were considered as survival number. After final monitoring, all the survived mice were humanely euthanized using CO 2 inhalation for 5 minutes.
At 180 days after the final vaccination, mice from one set were challenged with H5N2 for measuring the long lasting immune responses. All challenge tests were conducted inside an approved BSL-3+ facility under appropriate conditions. Bacterial Strains and Cloning for the Construction of Recombinant Plasmid PgsA-sM2/L. casei and PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei In this study, E. coli JM83 was used for cloning and L. casei L525 was used for surface expression of the target protein. These bacteria were grown in LB and MRS media, respectively. The plasmid pKV-Pald-PgsA, harboring the pgsA genes of Bacillus subtilis, was used to construct the surface display plasmid, which was a kind gift from the Bioleaders Corporation (Daejeon, South Korea). A gene encoding the consensus sequence of M2 spanning the residues of the extracellular and cytoplasmic domains without the transmembrane domain of influenza virus was generated. The consensus sequences were created based on the most common amino acids in each position of the alignment of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2; then, they were synthesized and used as templates for the construction of the plasmids pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei by cloning, as described previously [26, 27] . The sM2 gene was modified by adding a Kpn I site at the 59 terminal and Sal I at the 39 terminal for cloning. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed to amplify the gene using the primer pair 59-GGGGTACCTCATTATTAACA-39, and 59-ACGTCGACT-CATTATTCAAGTTCAATAATG AC-39. Similarly, a BamH I site at the 59 terminal and a Kpn I site at the 39 terminal end were added to the CTA1 gene using primers 59-CGGGATCCAAT-GATGATAAGTTATAT-39 and 59-GGGT ACCCGAT-GATCTTGGAGC ATT-39. The modified genes were ligated into the T Easy Vector (Invitrogen, Seoul, Korea). Genes were then digested with Kpn I-Sal I for sM2 and BamH I-Kpn I for CTA1. The digested sM2 was ligated to the plasmid vector pKV-pgsA for the construction of pKV-pgsA-sM2. Similarly, CTA1 was ligated for the construction of pKV-pgsA-CTA1-sM2. The ligated products were transformed into E. coli JM83 competent cells, as previously described, using an electroporation method [17] . The profiles of the recombinant plasmids were confirmed by restriction endonuclease digestion and DNA sequencing (Solgent, Seoul, Korea). After confirmation, the plasmids were transformed into L. casei L525 by electroporation and named pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei.
The recombinant L. casei containing pgsA, pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 genes were grown at 30uC for 48 hours. Cells were harvested by centrifugation at 6,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, followed by washing two times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Bacterial lyses were performed by sonication and centrifuged at 12,0006g for 20 minutes at 4uC. Cell wall and cytoplasmic fractions were separated by centrifugation at 25,0006g at 4uC for 2 hours. Pellets (cell wall) were resuspended in 100 ml of 1% sarcosol containing 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) as a protease inhibitor. Fractions were analyzed by western blotting, as described previously. For the immune detection of fusion proteins, the membranes were probed with rabbit anti-cholera toxin (1:2000, Abcam, UK), rabbit anti-pgsA (1:1000) and rabbit anti-M2 (1:1000) antibodies. The rabbit anti-pgsA and rabbit anti-M2 antibodies used in this experiment were generated by the i.m. inoculation of KLH-conjugated pgsA or M2 peptide in rabbit, respectively, two times at 2 weeks-interval. The membranes were reacted with a 1:10,000 dilution of anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (IgG HRP). Finally, the target proteins were detected using the WEST-ZOL plus Western Blot Detection System (iNtRON Biotechnology, Gyeonggi-do, Korea) and visualized by enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) [17, 26, 28] .
To investigate the expression of sM2 or CTA1-sM2 on the surface of L. casei, recombinant L. casei were grown in 30uC for 48 hours in the MRS broth. Bacteria were harvested by centrifugation at 5,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, washed three times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline containing 0.01% Tween-20 (PBST) and probed with polyclonal rabbit anti-M2 or rabbit anti-CT antibody overnight. Following another washing, the cells were treated with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)conjugated anti-rabbit IgG antibodies (Burlingame, CA, USA) for 2 hours. Finally, 10,000 cells were analyzed by flow cytometry (Becton Dickinson, Oxnard, CA, USA). For the immunofluorescence, cells were prepared under the same condition described for the flow cytometry. The pgsA/L. casei was used as a negative control and Immunofluoresence analysis was examined using a Carl Zeiss Axioskop 2 fluorescence microscope.
ELISA Antibody titers were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using serum or mucosal samples from vaccinated mice. First, 96-well immunosorbent plates (Nunc) were incubated with 300 ng/well purified sM2 or CTA1 proteins at 4uC overnight. The recombinant sM2 and CTA1 proteins used in this study were purified from E. coli. Next, the wells were blocked with 10% skim milk for 2 hours in RT, washed five times with PBST, treated with diluted serum samples (1:200) in triplicate for detecting IgG and undiluted tissue homogenized supernatant for detecting local IgA and incubated for 2 hours at 37uC. After washing three times, goat anti-mouse IgG HRP (1:1000, sigma) or anti-mouse IgA was added to each well and incubated for an additional 2 hours at 37uC. Following another round of washing, the plates were reacted with the substrate solution containing tetramethylbenzidine and H 2 O 2 and allowed to precede the reaction for 10 minutes. After adding the stop solution 2N-H 2 SO 4 , the optical density (OD) was measured at 450 nm using an ELISA autoreader (Molecular devices).
The development and counting of cytokines were performed by ELISPOTs, as described previously [31, 32] . Briefly, the day before the isolation of splenocytes, ELISPOT 96-well plates were coated with monoclonal anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 capture antibodies (5 mg/ml) in PBS and incubated at 4uC overnight. The plates were washed with PBS, and 200 ml/well of blocking solution containing complete RPMI 1640 medium and 10% fetal bovine serum, was added (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and incubated for 2 hours in RT. Spleens from the vaccinated mice were isolated aseptically and added at 5610 4 cells/well in media containing sM2 protein, M2 peptide (SLLTEVETPTRNGWECKCSD) (1 mg/well), only medium (negative control), or 5 mg/ml phytohemagglutinin (positive control, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). After adding cells and stimulators, the plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37uC with 5% CO 2 . The plates were sequentially treated with biotinylated anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 antibodies, streptavidinhorseradish peroxidase, and substrate solution. Finally, the spots were counted using an ImmunoScan Entry analyzer (Cellular Technology, Shaker Heights, USA).
The lungs were collected aseptically, and virus titers were determined by 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID 50 ), as described previously [33] . Briefly, lung tissues were homogenized in 500 ml of PBS containing antibiotics (penicillin, and streptomycin) and antimycotics (Fungizone) compounds (Gibco, Grand Island, NY, USA). Mechanically homogenized lung samples were centrifuged (15 minutes, 12,0006g and 4uC) to remove the cellular debris before their storage at 280uC. MDCK cells were inoculated with a 10-fold serially diluted sample and incubated at 37uC in a humid atmosphere of 5% CO 2 for an hour. After absorption, the media was removed, and overlay medium containing L-1-tosylamido-2-phenylethyl chloromethyl ketone (TPCK) trypsin (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rockford, USA) was added to the infected cells and incubated for 72 hours. Viral cytopathic effects were observed daily, and the titers were determined by the HA test. The viral titer of each sample was expressed as 50% tissue infected doses using the Reed-Muench method [34] .
For histopathology, lung tissues were collected at 5 dpi from ether narcosis-anesthetized mice. Tissues were immediately fixed in 10% formalin containing neutral buffer, embedded in paraffin wax, sectioned at 4-6 mm thickness using a microtome machine, mounted onto slides, and stained with eosin stain. Histopathological changes were examined by light microscopy, as previously described [29, 30, 35] . Furthermore, slides were stained using an immunoperoxidase method with an antibody (rabbit anti-M2, 1:500) directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus. A Goat-anti-rabbit IgG HRP (1:2000, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) was used as the secondary antibody for the detection of virus infected cells in respective tissues [57] .
Data are presented as the means 6 standard deviations (S.D.) and are representative of at least three independent experiments. Differences between groups were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), and means were compared by Student's t-test. P-values less than 0.05 were regarded as significant. Results for percent initial body weight were also compared by using Student's t test.
Comparison of survival was done by log-rank test using GraphPad Prism 6 version.
The pgsA-expressing vector was used to construct plasmids containing the highly conserved consensus sM2 gene, with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2) or without (pgsA-sM2) the cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1, Fig. 1A ). Plasmids were transformed into L. casei cells. The expression levels of pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were monitored by immunoblotting using anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies (data not shown).
To determine the cellular localization of the sM2 and CTA1 proteins expressed on the surface of L. casei via the cell wall anchor protein pgsA, membrane and cytoplasmic fractions were subjected to western blot analysis. As expected, both pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins were detected by anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies in the membrane, not in cytoplasmic fractions (Fig. 1B, lane 2, 3 and 4) . Immunoreactions were performed with anti-pgsA, and bands representing the size of the fused proteins pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were detected, while during the reactions with anti-M2 or anti-CT antibodies, no other bands were detected (Fig. 1B, lane 3 and 4) . This finding may have resulted from the degradation that occurs during the membrane fractionation procedure.
Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and immunofluorescence labeling of the cells were used to verify the localization of the fusion pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 protein on the surface of L. casei. Flow cytometric analysis using rabbit anti-M2 and anti-CT antibodies revealed increase level of fluorescence intensity of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells, compared to that of control L. casei cells (Fig. 1C ). Immunofluorescence microscopy also showed recombinant bacteria harboring pgsA-sM2 or pgsA-CTA1-sM2 that immunostained positive for sM2 and CTA1, but this was not found in control cells. These results demonstrated that recombinant L. casei could efficiently display the sM2 and CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins on the surface, using pgsA as a membrane anchor protein.
Immune Responses Induced by Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface Displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2
Preliminary experiment was conducted to determine the doses and schedule of pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei vaccine candidate on influenza virus protection (data not shown). To characterize the immunogenicity of the L. casei surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1conjugated sM2, BALB/c mice were immunized nasally (10 9 cells/20 ml dose) or orally (10 10 cells/100 ml dose) with recombinant live pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei bacteria. As a negative control, mice were immunized with L. casei harboring the parental plasmid pKV-pgsA (pgsA/L. casei) and PBS. Serum samples were collected at 0, 14 and 28 days and analyzed by ELISA, using sM2 and CTA1 proteins (purified from E. coli) as a coating antigen. After the first series of immunization, comparatively low levels of serum IgG were detected both in the i.n. and orally immunized group. However, high antibody levels were detected shortly after the second series of immunization, and the CTA1-conjugated sM2 group induced serum IgG at significant level, compared to sM2-only group and negative controls ( Fig. 2A and B) . Although the conjugation of CTA1 with sM2 was expected to have an adjuvant function only, a significant level of anti-CTA1 antibodies was detected in both the nasal and oral vaccinations ( Fig. 2A and B right panel) . In comparison with the oral group, the nasally immunized group showed higher levels of serum IgG specific to both sM2 and CTA1.
To assess the mucosal immune responses, the local IgA levels were determined by ELISA. Lung and intestinal tissues were collected at day 28 of immunization and examined using sM2 protein as a coating antigen. In both routes of vaccination, pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced significantly increased levels of sM2specific mucosal IgA compared to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups. However, as expected, higher levels of antibody titers were detected at the site of inoculation than at the remote site. A similar pattern of antibody responses was observed for both routes of immunization, in which the pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei groups dominated ( Fig. 2C and D) . These data demonstrated that cholera toxin subunit A1-conjugated sM2 resulted in significant enhancements to the sM2-specific IgG and mucosal IgA levels compared with sM2 alone or with controls immunized with pgsA/ L. casei or PBS.
Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2 Stimulated M2-specific Cellular Immune Response
To determine whether mucosal vaccination with L. casei surfacedisplayed sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 could induce cellular immunity, IFN-c and IL-4 ELISPOT were performed. Splenocytes from vaccinated mice were stimulated with 10 mg/ml of recombinant sM2 protein or M2 peptide, and the cytokine ELISPOTs were developed. The spots were counted to measure the differences in the CTL responses between the groups. Cells from the mice immunized i.n. with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed significant levels of IFN-c in response to stimulation with sM2 protein and M2 peptide (Fig. 3A) . Similarly, we observed that i.n. administered groups both for pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed detectable levels of IL-4 secreting splenocytes following stimulation with either sM2 protein or M2 peptide (Fig. 3B) . IFN-c and IL-4 secreting cells were also observed in mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 3C ) although their levels were lower than i.n. group and were not significant. Control group immunized with pgsA/L. casei showed background spot level for both in intranasal and oral groups. These findings indicate that highly conserved sM2 can induce M2-specific IFN-c and IL-4 secreting T cell responses, while mucosal delivery through L. casei and CTA1 conjugation with sM2 enhanced the cell mediated immunity, which may contribute to broadening the protective immunity.
M2 is known as a potential target for the development of broad spectrum influenza vaccine with minimum variability [36, 37] . To confirm the variability of sM2 sequences of the challenged viruses used in this study, we compared the sM2 of influenza subtypes available from U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) with our consensus sM2 sequence particularly the whole conserved ecto and some portion of cytoplasmic domain (CD) although entire CD was included in vaccine construct (Table 1) . We found that, viruses used in this study contain 0-8 mismatched amino acids among the amino acids of sM2 compared in this study. To evaluate the efficacy of the sM2 vaccine, week after the final immunization, mice were challenged i.n. with the 10 MLD 50 of A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2) influenza virus subtypes that was homologous to the consensus sM2 sequence. Mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/ L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed 40 and 60% protection respectively. Similarly, i.n. immunization groups conferred 40 and 80%, against the lethal infection with highly virulent H5N2 virus. In contrast, none of the unimmunized mice survived after lethal infection ( Fig. 4A and B, right panel) . Morbidity was increased in the mice immunized via oral route, whereas mice that received i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost ,20% of their initial body weight and started recovering by 9 day post infection (dpi) and had completely recovered by day 13 (Fig. 4A and B, left panel) .
We next evaluated the protection efficiency of sM2 vaccine candidate against A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), which contains 8 mismatched amino acids relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Sets of vaccinated mice were challenged with 10 MLD 50 of the H1N1 virus. As shown in figure 4C and D, mice immunized by the The mice were grouped as mentioned in materials and methods and received oral or nasal administrations, according to the schedule. Arrows indicated the immunization routes and periods of pgsA/L. casei, pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells. Sera were collected at days 0, 14 and 28; samples from the lungs and intestines were collected at day 28 after immunization. A week after the final immunization, spleens were excised from 3 mice in each group, with one set for CTL analysis. Two or 24 weeks after the last immunization, all mice were challenged with a lethal dose of influenza subtypes through intranasal route and monitored for 13 days. On days 3 and 5 post infection, the lungs were excised from 3 mice in each group to determine the virus titer. On 5 dpi, the mice from one set were sacrificed for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g001 CTA1-sM2 Induces Protective Immunity to Pathogenic Influenza A Viruses PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org i.n route exhibited a higher level of protection than the orally immunized groups, and mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei showed a significantly higher level of protection compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, right panel) . Unimmunized mice lost up to 40% of their body weight and died by 9 dpi. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost approximately 10% of their body weight, whereas mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei lost .20% of their initial body weight by 9 dpi and recovered more slowly than mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, left panel) .
Another set of vaccinated mice were infected with A/Chicken/ Korea/116/2004(H9N2) to check the range of protection ability of sM2 vaccine induced immune responses. The sM2 sequence of H9N2 contains 2 mismatched relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. The mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight losses and gradual recovery compared to those of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and the unimmunized mice for both the i.n and oral routes (Fig. 4E and F left panel) . None of the unimmunized mice survived, whereas 100% and 80% of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei via the i.n. and oral routes survived, respectively. The survival rates of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei were 80% and 60% for the i.n. and oral routes, respectively ( Fig. 4E and F, right panel) .
The breadth of protection of the sM2 vaccine against divergent influenza subtypes was also evaluated. Set of immunized mice were challenged with high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A/ EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), which contains 2 amino acid mismatches relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Mice immunized via the i.n. and oral routes with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed higher protection efficacies, 80% and 60%, respectively, compared with mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei, for which the rates were 60% and 20%, respectively ( Fig. 4G and H, right panel) . Regarding morbidity, mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed lower morbidity than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4G and H, left panel) . One more set of vaccinated mice were challenged with the A/Aquatic bird/ Korea/W44/2005 (H7N3) virus, which contains 1 mismatch relative to the consensus sM2 sequence, and the body weight and survival were observed for 13 dpi. As shown in figure 4I and J, unimmunized mice lost as much as 30% of their body weight than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4I and J, left panel) . Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei through the i.n route showed significantly higher level of protection against the H7N3 influenza virus than the other groups ( Fig. 4I and J, right panel) . Taken together, the results indicate that i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced immune responses that conferred significant levels of protection against divergent subtypes of influenza viruses containing mismatched amino acids ranging from 0 to 8 of the consensus sM2, regardless of whether it was complete or partial.
Virus titers in the lungs of challenged mice were measured to estimate replication at 3 and 5 dpi. Mice were immunized via the i.n and oral routes with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei and challenged with the H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 or H7N3 influenza subtypes. On 3 and 5 dpi, 3 mice were sacrificed randomly from each group, and their lung virus titers were measured using the TCID 50 method. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei had lower titers at 3 dpi and had significantly reduced viral replication at 5 dpi compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or the control groups at the same time ( Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced viral titers in the lungs were observed in groups of mice immunized via the i.n route relative to the mice immunized via the oral route, particularly at day 3 post infections (Fig. 5) . These reduced titers may be due to routes of vaccination and challenge being the same, and the titers correlated with the survival results for lethal infections with H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 and H7N3. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the consensus sM2 protein fused with CTA1 afforded better protection than sM2, and the i.n route was more potent than the oral route of immunization with regard to protection against a lethal challenge of divergent influenza subtypes.
Histopathology and immunohistochemistry were performed to corroborate the lung virus titer findings. At 5 dpi, lungs were randomly collected from each group of one set, fixed and stained with eosin before being examined under a light microscope. As shown in figure 5K , clear signs of profound pulmonary inflammation were observed in the lungs of mice treated with PBS or pgsA/L. casei for both the oral and i.n routes of administration, whereas the lungs of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed no remarkable pulmonary inflammation compare to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei-treated mice (Fig. 5K, middle and left panel) . For immunohistochemistry, immunoperoxidase method with an antibody directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus was used for the detection of virus infected cells in the respective tissues. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. As shown in figure 5K, at 5 days p.i., numerous virusinfected cells were detected in control or pgsA-sM2/L. casei vaccinated mice, whereas highly reduced number of antigen positive cells were found in the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, both in i.n. and orally immunized group (Fig. 5K right panel) . These results indicate that mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei developed immune responses that are strong enough to inhibit virus replication, which promotes the survival of mice after a lethal infection by influenza A.
The PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei Vaccination Induced Longlasting Cross Protection
The duration of protection is an important criterion for a potential vaccine. Thus, the longevity of the immunity induced by sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 were investigated by detecting serum IgG and mucosal IgA by ELISA. Significantly increase levels of sM2-specific serum IgG as well as lung and intestinal IgA were observed 180 days after vaccination ( Fig. 6A and C) compare to PBS and pgsA/L. casei groups. Mice were challenged with A/ Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), and the body weight changes and survival were monitored until 13 dpi. The unimmunized mice showed .30% body weight loss (Fig. 6B and D left panel) and died by day 9 post infection in both the oral and i.n. groups. In contrast, the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight loss, which was recovered by 13 dpi; 80% survived in the i.n. immunized group (Fig. 6B right panel) , and 60% survived in the orally immunized group (Fig. 6D right panel) . This result indicates that the CTA1conjugated sM2 mucosal vaccine conferred protection against a lethal infection 6 months after the final immunization.
The mucosal immune system is the first immunological barrier against the pathogens that invade the body via the mucosal surface. Thus, the induction of mucosal immunity is necessary to ensure protection against multiple subtypes of influenza A virus. A respiratory virus, influenza A is responsible for annual seasonal epidemics worldwide and, occasionally, pandemics, which are caused by emerging novel subtypes/strains derived through reassortment with avian or porcine viruses. Current influenza vaccines provide strain-specific protection only. Thus, it is crucial to establish a broadly cross-protective influenza vaccine. Antigens that are well conserved among influenza A viruses are considered promising targets for the induction of cross-protection against these different subtypes. However, the goal should be the development of a first line of defense by effectively eliminating pathogens at the mucosal surface. Influenza matrix protein-2 (M2) is relatively well conserved among the influenza subtypes and can be considered a promising influenza vaccine antigen [30] . It consists of the following three structural domains: a 24-amino-acid extracellular domain, a 19-amino-acid transmembrane domain, and a 54-amino-acid cytoplasmic tail domain [39, 40] . The extracellular and cytoplasmic domains, which are well conserved among influenza viruses and play an important role in viral assembly and morphogenesis, were used in this study. Here, we developed sM2 consensus derived from the analysis of sequences of H5N1, H1N1 and H9N2 subtypes in the database. Considering the previous findings that extracellular domain particularly (aa, 1-13) is highly conserved among the influenza virus subtypes and recognized as epitope for the induction of monoclonal antibodies, which could protect influenza virus infection [56] , sM2 backbone sequence from the H5N1 virus were used. For the possible homology among other subtypes we changed at the position of 14 (E-G) and 18 (R-K) and kept unchanged the conserved epitope (aa, 1-13). As shown in sequence alignment, sM2 of consensus sequence has 0-8 mismatches among the subtypes used in this study (Table 1) .
Moreover, the incorporation of an adjuvant is considered essential to boost the interaction of the vaccine with the mucosal immune system [41] . Various adjuvants, such as liposomes, nanoparticles, and immunostimulating complexes (ISCOMs), have been studied and were found to improve the immune response [42] , but their efficacies were not optimal. Despite its potential as a mucosal adjuvant [43] , the use of cholera toxin (CT) in vaccines is limited by its innate toxicity. Thus, the toxicity of CT would have to be separated from its adjuvanticity before it could be used as a vaccine adjuvant. Studies have shown that constructs consisting of M2e fused with cholera toxin subunit A1 along with a strong ADPribosylating agent and a dimer of the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus protein A vaccine elicited complete protection and reduced morbidity [6, 44] . CTA1 retains the adjuvant function of CT without its toxic side effects, such as reactogenicity at the site of its administration and binding to or accumulation in the nervous tissues [45] . Based on previous findings, it has been hypothesized that the consensus sM2 fragment, when fused with the potent mucosal adjuvant CTA1, may induce broad protective immunity against divergent subtypes of influenza virus. In this study, we used the whole 22-kDa CTA1 protein (an ADP ribosyltransferase), which consists of three distinct subdomains: CTA11 (residues 1 to 132), CTA12 (residues 133 to 161), and CTA13 (residues 162 to 192). It has been reported that CTA1 lacking CTB has strong adjuvant activities without any toxicity. CTA1 enhances the IgA and IgG antibody responses, as well as CTL activity [47] .
For the development of a universal mucosal influenza vaccine with a conserved sM2 peptide and potent adjuvant CTA1, recombinant L. casei displaying sM2 fused with or without CTA1
The lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed clear alveoli without inflammatory cell infiltration, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control mice, both of which revealed features of severe pneumonitis (middle and left panel). Reduced number of viral antigen were detected in lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control revealed features of severe pneumonitis with increase virus antigen (right panel). Micrographs are representative for each treatment group at a magnification of 200X. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. In lung titers, bars denote mean 6 S.D. The asterisk indicates a significant difference between pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei and other groups (*P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g005 were constructed for mucosal delivery by the widely used live vaccine vehicle LAB [38] . The pgsA gene used in this study is an anchor for display on the surface of LAB which is derived from the pgsBCA enzyme complex of Bacillus subtilis and consists of transmembrane domain near its N-terminus with the domain located on the outside of the cell membrane. Thus, pgsA is able to cross the cell wall and display the heterologous protein fused to its C-terminus [17] .
The developed vaccines were tested through two major routes. We found that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei was able to induce a significantly higher level of sM2-specific serum IgG ( Fig. 2A and B ) and mucosal IgA (Fig. 2C and D) compared to pgsA-sM2/L. casei, and conferring protection against divergent influenza subtypes of both phylogenetic group 1 (H1, H5, H9) and group 2 (H7) [46] (Fig. 4) . This study also revealed that i.n. administration was superior to the oral route of vaccination, which is consistent with other observations [48] . There may be two possible reasons to explain this phenomenon. First, the challenge route is the same as that of the vaccination; specific mucosal IgA can prevent viral colonization in the respiratory tract. Second, the volume of the inocula was 5 times lower than that for oral inoculation, which may have allowed the concentrated form of the antigen to be presented to immune cells. Because greater levels of serum IgG and mucosal IgA were detected in intranasally immunized mice than in those immunized orally (Fig. 2) , an alternative explanation could be that the antigens are processed and/or presented differently to immune cells in the two mucosal compartments. Importantly, our study demonstrated for the first time that mucosal immunization with the LAB surface-displayed CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate induced broad protection against challenge with divergent influenza subtypes.
However, the mechanism by which Abs against sM2 mediated this broad protection is not fully understood. Previous studies have demonstrated that Abs to the N-terminus of M2e, particularly positions 1-10, inhibited the replication of the influenza A virus [49, 50] . Other studies revealed that anti-M2e IgG-mediated cellular cytotoxicity or phagocytosis can induce the removal of infected cells before progeny virus budding and spread [54, 55] which is supporting our findings of lung virus titer and immunohistochemistry data detected at 5 dpi in our challenge experiments. Therefore, in this study, combination of those responses and Abs to the N-terminus of the sM2 sequence which is conserved among the challenge viruses (Table 1 ) may protect the divergent influenza subtypes after mucosal immunization with the recombinant LAB CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate. Moreover, the cellular immune response plays an important role in controlling viral replication. We examined the Th1-type (IFN-c) and Th2-type (IL-4) cytokine responses by the ELISPOT assay. Significantly higher levels of IFN-c were detected in response to stimulation with both the sM2 protein and M2 peptide in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei compared to the levels in mice in the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups ( Fig. 3A and C) . Similarly, substantially high levels of IL-4 were observed in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei upon stimulation with the sM2 protein and M2 peptide ( Fig. 3B and D) . These results further support the findings that the antibodies and cell-mediated cytotoxicity were specific to the M2 antigen and that their anti-viral activities were induced by monomeric M2, three copies of M2 fused with ASP-1 [34, 51, 52] . Together, these results indicate that sM2 adjuvanted with fused CTA1 induced immune responses in mice, which protected them from divergent influenza subtypes. In this regard, our results have significance for the use of CTA1, which has adjuvant function, in vaccine candidates.
As clinical protection is not the only parameter by which vaccine performance is assessed, we evaluated the immunogenicity of the recombinant LAB vaccine on the basis of other parameters, such as the reduction of pathological lesions and virus shedding. In this study, low titers of the challenge virus were titrated from the lungs after vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, whereas challenge virus could be detected at higher titers in the mock mice and those vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced gross and histopathological lesions consistent with viral infection are the primary parameters indicative of influenza vaccine efficacy. Here, we demonstrated that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei remarkably limited the severity of the damage by inhibiting viral replication and the accumulation of inflammatory cells and virus antigen in the lung alveolar tissues, relative to the severity in the unimmunized mice and the mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5K) .
Our study further demonstrated, for the first time, that recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-sM2 induced long-lasting immunity and conferred protection against lethal infections by influenza, even at 6 months after the final vaccination (Fig. 6) , which is important for any successful vaccine. Similar results were observed in previous studies, in which M2 VLP conferred longterm immunity and cross protection and the antibodies in the sera and mucosal sites were long lived [53, 54] .
In conclusion, our findings revealed that the mucosal immunization of mice with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated sM2 can induce systemic and local, as well as cellmediated, immune responses against divergent influenza virus subtypes. Thus, the recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated consensus sM2 mucosal vaccine may be a promising vaccine candidate for influenza pandemic preparedness. | What is the percentage decrease in influenza antibodies after 8 months after inoculation with the inactivated vaccine? | {
"answer_start": [
2609
],
"text": [
"75%"
]
} | false |
5,185 | Mucosal Vaccination with Recombinant Lactobacillus casei-Displayed CTA1-Conjugated Consensus Matrix Protein-2 (sM2) Induces Broad Protection against Divergent Influenza Subtypes in BALB/c Mice
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979752/
SHA: efaa556b484fbcd9cc34832ffac53ef3e834e9c0
Authors: Chowdhury, Mohammed Y. E.; Li, Rui; Kim, Jae-Hoon; Park, Min-Eun; Kim, Tae-Hwan; Pathinayake, Prabuddha; Weeratunga, Prasanna; Song, Man Ki; Son, Hwa-Young; Hong, Seung-Pyo; Sung, Moon-Hee; Lee, Jong-Soo; Kim, Chul-Joong
Date: 2014-04-08
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094051
License: cc-by
Abstract: To develop a safe and effective mucosal vaccine against pathogenic influenza viruses, we constructed recombinant Lactobacillus casei strains that express conserved matrix protein 2 with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei) or without (pgsA-sM2/L. casei) cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) on the surface. The surface localization of the fusion protein was verified by cellular fractionation analyses, flow cytometry and immunofluorescence microscopy. Oral and nasal inoculations of recombinant L. casei into mice resulted in high levels of serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) and mucosal IgA. However, the conjugation of cholera toxin subunit A1 induced more potent mucosal, humoral and cell-mediated immune responses. In a challenge test with 10 MLD(50) of A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird /Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) viruses, the recombinant pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei provided better protection against lethal challenges than pgsA-sM2/L. casei, pgsA/L. casei and PBS in mice. These results indicate that mucosal immunization with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-conjugated sM2 protein on its surface is an effective means of eliciting protective immune responses against diverse influenza subtypes.
Text: Vaccination remains most economical and effective means against respiratory diseases caused by influenza viruses [1] . Based on the circulating viruses in the population, trivalent vaccine strains have been developed and are used for the influenza virus protection [2] . The most acceptable current available strategy is the intramuscular administration of inactivated vaccines produced by egg-based manufacturing systems which while effective, are hampered by limited capacity and flexibility [3] . However, vaccine strains must be frequently adapted to match the circulating viruses throughout the world [4] . In addition, the levels of antibody induced by the inactivated vaccine have been observed to decrease by 75% over an 8-month period [2, 5] . Therefore, alternative strategies for developing broadly cross-protective, safe and effective vaccines against influenza viral infections are of prominent importance.
Matrix protein 2 (M2) is highly conserved among influenza A virus strains, indicating that M2 is an attractive target for developing a universal vaccine [6] . In previous studies, various constructs of the M2 vaccine have been developed and tested, including recombinant Escherichia coli (E. coli) expressing M2 fusion protein, adenoviral vectors expressing the M2 protein, plasmid DNA encoding M2 [7] [8] [9] and peptides encoding M2e [11] , each of which was able to elicit protective immune responses in mice. However, the drawback of these M2-based vaccines is their low immunogenicity; additionally, most of them would require intramuscular injections. Therefore, many strategies have been applied focusing on increasing the immunogenicity of M2-based vaccines, for example, fusion of M2 with different carrier molecules like human papilloma virus L protein [12] , keyhole limpet hemocyanin [10] and flagellin [13] . Furthermore, vaccinations with different adjuvants and routes of administration have been applied to evaluate their protection against divergent strains of influenza viruses. Mice immunized mucosally with an M2 or virus like particles (VLPs) adjuvanted with cholera toxin (CT) demonstrated better protection compared to mice subjected to parenteral immunization [14, 15] . However, due to the adverse effects of CT in humans, investigators have attempted to identify nontoxic subunits with adjuvanticity by removing either subunit A or subunit B [16] . E. coli expressing cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) fused with the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus showed the adjuvant effects without any reactogenicity of the A1 subunit in the mucosal vaccine [6] . Although, chemical or genetic conjugation of M2 may not present M2 in its native tetrameric form, extracellularly accessible antigens expressed on the surfaces of bacteria are better recognized by the immune system than those that are intracellular [17] . Thus, choice of delivery vehicle is also an important concern for potential mucosal vaccines.
Recently, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) presenting influenza virus antigens have been studied [3, 18, 19] . For mucosal immunization, LAB is a more attractive delivery system than other live vaccine vectors, such as Shigella, Salmonella, and Listeria [20, 21] . It is considered safe and exhibits an adjuvant-like effect on mucosal and systemic immunity [18, 22, 23] . Anchoring of the target protein to the cell surfaces of LAB is primarily intended to use in mucosal vaccines. The transmembrane protein pgsA is one of the poly-cglutamate synthetase complexes of Bacillus subtilis [17, 24, 25] , which is a well-studied anchor protein is able to fuse the target protein to its C terminus and stabilize the complex by anchoring it in the cell membrane. Since sM2 is a highly conserved and promising target for a universal vaccine and CTA1 is strong mucosal adjuvant, in this study, we developed constructs using a consensus sM2 gene reconstituted from the analysis of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2 influenza viruses (no trans-membrane domain) with or without the fusion of CTA1. To achieve this, we used a novel expression vector that can express a pgsA gene product as an anchoring matrix. Our target antigens, sM2 and CTA1, were displayed on the surface of Lactobacillus casei, and the oral or intranasal administration of recombinant L. casei induced systemic and mucosal immune responses that have the potential to protect against the lethal challenges of divergent influenza subtypes.
A total of 672 female BALB/c mice (5 weeks old) were purchased from Samtako (Seoul, Korea) and housed in ventilated cages. The mice were managed with pelleted feed and tap water ad libitum, maintained in a specific-pathogen-free environment and all efforts were made to minimize suffering following approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of of Bioleaders Corporation, Daejeon, South Korea, protocol number: BSL-ABLS-13-002. Immunizations of animal were conducted in biosafety level (BSL)-2 laboratory facilities. Mice were divided into 6 experimental sets, each consisting of 2 subsets: 1 for oral and 1 for intranasal administration which contained 4 groups each. Out of 6, 4 sets had 14 mice per group. One sets had 17 (3 mice for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry), and the last contained 11 mice per group (3 mice for CTL response).
Concentrations of recombinant L. casei were determined by colony forming units (CFU). In each subset, 2 groups received 10 10 CFU of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, and the remaining two groups received the same concentration of pKV-pgsA/L. casei or PBS in 100 ml orally via intragastric lavage at days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21 to 23. Similarly, 10 9 CFU of recombinant cells were administered in 20 ml suspensions into the nostrils of lightly anesthetized mice on days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21. Blood samples were collected from the retro-orbital plexus at days 21, 14 and 28; sera were separated by centrifugation for 5 minutes at 12,0006g and stored at 220uC until analysis. At day 28, 3 mice in each group were randomly sacrificed to collect IgA sample from lungs and intestine and stored at 270uC until analysis. Spleens were collected aseptically at day 28 for the analysis of the CTL response randomly from 3 mice of one set. The rest of the mice from the same set were maintained for 6 months from the date of the last boosting to measure the long-lasting immune responses and protection efficacy.
The avian influenza viruses A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/ Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) used in this study were kindly provided by Dr. Young-Ki Choi (College of Medicine and Medical Research Institute, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea). All viruses were propagated in the allantoic fluid of 10-day-old chicken embryos, and 50% mouse lethal doses (MLD 50 ) were determined in 8-week-old naive BALB/ c mice. Ether narcosis-anesthetized mice were intranasally infected with 10 times the MLD 50 of challenge viruses in 20 ml of PBS. Six mice in each group were sacrificed on 3 and 5 dpi to check virus titer in lungs and other 5 mice remained in each group have been used for survival. Mice were monitored every alternate day at fixed time point for measuring the weight loss and survival. Mice were euthanized if moribund, i.e. weight loss, ruffled fur, shivering, tachypnea, respiratory distress, hypothermia and poorly responsive to external stimuli, remaining were considered as survival number. After final monitoring, all the survived mice were humanely euthanized using CO 2 inhalation for 5 minutes.
At 180 days after the final vaccination, mice from one set were challenged with H5N2 for measuring the long lasting immune responses. All challenge tests were conducted inside an approved BSL-3+ facility under appropriate conditions. Bacterial Strains and Cloning for the Construction of Recombinant Plasmid PgsA-sM2/L. casei and PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei In this study, E. coli JM83 was used for cloning and L. casei L525 was used for surface expression of the target protein. These bacteria were grown in LB and MRS media, respectively. The plasmid pKV-Pald-PgsA, harboring the pgsA genes of Bacillus subtilis, was used to construct the surface display plasmid, which was a kind gift from the Bioleaders Corporation (Daejeon, South Korea). A gene encoding the consensus sequence of M2 spanning the residues of the extracellular and cytoplasmic domains without the transmembrane domain of influenza virus was generated. The consensus sequences were created based on the most common amino acids in each position of the alignment of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2; then, they were synthesized and used as templates for the construction of the plasmids pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei by cloning, as described previously [26, 27] . The sM2 gene was modified by adding a Kpn I site at the 59 terminal and Sal I at the 39 terminal for cloning. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed to amplify the gene using the primer pair 59-GGGGTACCTCATTATTAACA-39, and 59-ACGTCGACT-CATTATTCAAGTTCAATAATG AC-39. Similarly, a BamH I site at the 59 terminal and a Kpn I site at the 39 terminal end were added to the CTA1 gene using primers 59-CGGGATCCAAT-GATGATAAGTTATAT-39 and 59-GGGT ACCCGAT-GATCTTGGAGC ATT-39. The modified genes were ligated into the T Easy Vector (Invitrogen, Seoul, Korea). Genes were then digested with Kpn I-Sal I for sM2 and BamH I-Kpn I for CTA1. The digested sM2 was ligated to the plasmid vector pKV-pgsA for the construction of pKV-pgsA-sM2. Similarly, CTA1 was ligated for the construction of pKV-pgsA-CTA1-sM2. The ligated products were transformed into E. coli JM83 competent cells, as previously described, using an electroporation method [17] . The profiles of the recombinant plasmids were confirmed by restriction endonuclease digestion and DNA sequencing (Solgent, Seoul, Korea). After confirmation, the plasmids were transformed into L. casei L525 by electroporation and named pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei.
The recombinant L. casei containing pgsA, pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 genes were grown at 30uC for 48 hours. Cells were harvested by centrifugation at 6,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, followed by washing two times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Bacterial lyses were performed by sonication and centrifuged at 12,0006g for 20 minutes at 4uC. Cell wall and cytoplasmic fractions were separated by centrifugation at 25,0006g at 4uC for 2 hours. Pellets (cell wall) were resuspended in 100 ml of 1% sarcosol containing 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) as a protease inhibitor. Fractions were analyzed by western blotting, as described previously. For the immune detection of fusion proteins, the membranes were probed with rabbit anti-cholera toxin (1:2000, Abcam, UK), rabbit anti-pgsA (1:1000) and rabbit anti-M2 (1:1000) antibodies. The rabbit anti-pgsA and rabbit anti-M2 antibodies used in this experiment were generated by the i.m. inoculation of KLH-conjugated pgsA or M2 peptide in rabbit, respectively, two times at 2 weeks-interval. The membranes were reacted with a 1:10,000 dilution of anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (IgG HRP). Finally, the target proteins were detected using the WEST-ZOL plus Western Blot Detection System (iNtRON Biotechnology, Gyeonggi-do, Korea) and visualized by enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) [17, 26, 28] .
To investigate the expression of sM2 or CTA1-sM2 on the surface of L. casei, recombinant L. casei were grown in 30uC for 48 hours in the MRS broth. Bacteria were harvested by centrifugation at 5,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, washed three times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline containing 0.01% Tween-20 (PBST) and probed with polyclonal rabbit anti-M2 or rabbit anti-CT antibody overnight. Following another washing, the cells were treated with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)conjugated anti-rabbit IgG antibodies (Burlingame, CA, USA) for 2 hours. Finally, 10,000 cells were analyzed by flow cytometry (Becton Dickinson, Oxnard, CA, USA). For the immunofluorescence, cells were prepared under the same condition described for the flow cytometry. The pgsA/L. casei was used as a negative control and Immunofluoresence analysis was examined using a Carl Zeiss Axioskop 2 fluorescence microscope.
ELISA Antibody titers were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using serum or mucosal samples from vaccinated mice. First, 96-well immunosorbent plates (Nunc) were incubated with 300 ng/well purified sM2 or CTA1 proteins at 4uC overnight. The recombinant sM2 and CTA1 proteins used in this study were purified from E. coli. Next, the wells were blocked with 10% skim milk for 2 hours in RT, washed five times with PBST, treated with diluted serum samples (1:200) in triplicate for detecting IgG and undiluted tissue homogenized supernatant for detecting local IgA and incubated for 2 hours at 37uC. After washing three times, goat anti-mouse IgG HRP (1:1000, sigma) or anti-mouse IgA was added to each well and incubated for an additional 2 hours at 37uC. Following another round of washing, the plates were reacted with the substrate solution containing tetramethylbenzidine and H 2 O 2 and allowed to precede the reaction for 10 minutes. After adding the stop solution 2N-H 2 SO 4 , the optical density (OD) was measured at 450 nm using an ELISA autoreader (Molecular devices).
The development and counting of cytokines were performed by ELISPOTs, as described previously [31, 32] . Briefly, the day before the isolation of splenocytes, ELISPOT 96-well plates were coated with monoclonal anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 capture antibodies (5 mg/ml) in PBS and incubated at 4uC overnight. The plates were washed with PBS, and 200 ml/well of blocking solution containing complete RPMI 1640 medium and 10% fetal bovine serum, was added (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and incubated for 2 hours in RT. Spleens from the vaccinated mice were isolated aseptically and added at 5610 4 cells/well in media containing sM2 protein, M2 peptide (SLLTEVETPTRNGWECKCSD) (1 mg/well), only medium (negative control), or 5 mg/ml phytohemagglutinin (positive control, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). After adding cells and stimulators, the plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37uC with 5% CO 2 . The plates were sequentially treated with biotinylated anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 antibodies, streptavidinhorseradish peroxidase, and substrate solution. Finally, the spots were counted using an ImmunoScan Entry analyzer (Cellular Technology, Shaker Heights, USA).
The lungs were collected aseptically, and virus titers were determined by 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID 50 ), as described previously [33] . Briefly, lung tissues were homogenized in 500 ml of PBS containing antibiotics (penicillin, and streptomycin) and antimycotics (Fungizone) compounds (Gibco, Grand Island, NY, USA). Mechanically homogenized lung samples were centrifuged (15 minutes, 12,0006g and 4uC) to remove the cellular debris before their storage at 280uC. MDCK cells were inoculated with a 10-fold serially diluted sample and incubated at 37uC in a humid atmosphere of 5% CO 2 for an hour. After absorption, the media was removed, and overlay medium containing L-1-tosylamido-2-phenylethyl chloromethyl ketone (TPCK) trypsin (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rockford, USA) was added to the infected cells and incubated for 72 hours. Viral cytopathic effects were observed daily, and the titers were determined by the HA test. The viral titer of each sample was expressed as 50% tissue infected doses using the Reed-Muench method [34] .
For histopathology, lung tissues were collected at 5 dpi from ether narcosis-anesthetized mice. Tissues were immediately fixed in 10% formalin containing neutral buffer, embedded in paraffin wax, sectioned at 4-6 mm thickness using a microtome machine, mounted onto slides, and stained with eosin stain. Histopathological changes were examined by light microscopy, as previously described [29, 30, 35] . Furthermore, slides were stained using an immunoperoxidase method with an antibody (rabbit anti-M2, 1:500) directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus. A Goat-anti-rabbit IgG HRP (1:2000, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) was used as the secondary antibody for the detection of virus infected cells in respective tissues [57] .
Data are presented as the means 6 standard deviations (S.D.) and are representative of at least three independent experiments. Differences between groups were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), and means were compared by Student's t-test. P-values less than 0.05 were regarded as significant. Results for percent initial body weight were also compared by using Student's t test.
Comparison of survival was done by log-rank test using GraphPad Prism 6 version.
The pgsA-expressing vector was used to construct plasmids containing the highly conserved consensus sM2 gene, with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2) or without (pgsA-sM2) the cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1, Fig. 1A ). Plasmids were transformed into L. casei cells. The expression levels of pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were monitored by immunoblotting using anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies (data not shown).
To determine the cellular localization of the sM2 and CTA1 proteins expressed on the surface of L. casei via the cell wall anchor protein pgsA, membrane and cytoplasmic fractions were subjected to western blot analysis. As expected, both pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins were detected by anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies in the membrane, not in cytoplasmic fractions (Fig. 1B, lane 2, 3 and 4) . Immunoreactions were performed with anti-pgsA, and bands representing the size of the fused proteins pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were detected, while during the reactions with anti-M2 or anti-CT antibodies, no other bands were detected (Fig. 1B, lane 3 and 4) . This finding may have resulted from the degradation that occurs during the membrane fractionation procedure.
Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and immunofluorescence labeling of the cells were used to verify the localization of the fusion pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 protein on the surface of L. casei. Flow cytometric analysis using rabbit anti-M2 and anti-CT antibodies revealed increase level of fluorescence intensity of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells, compared to that of control L. casei cells (Fig. 1C ). Immunofluorescence microscopy also showed recombinant bacteria harboring pgsA-sM2 or pgsA-CTA1-sM2 that immunostained positive for sM2 and CTA1, but this was not found in control cells. These results demonstrated that recombinant L. casei could efficiently display the sM2 and CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins on the surface, using pgsA as a membrane anchor protein.
Immune Responses Induced by Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface Displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2
Preliminary experiment was conducted to determine the doses and schedule of pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei vaccine candidate on influenza virus protection (data not shown). To characterize the immunogenicity of the L. casei surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1conjugated sM2, BALB/c mice were immunized nasally (10 9 cells/20 ml dose) or orally (10 10 cells/100 ml dose) with recombinant live pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei bacteria. As a negative control, mice were immunized with L. casei harboring the parental plasmid pKV-pgsA (pgsA/L. casei) and PBS. Serum samples were collected at 0, 14 and 28 days and analyzed by ELISA, using sM2 and CTA1 proteins (purified from E. coli) as a coating antigen. After the first series of immunization, comparatively low levels of serum IgG were detected both in the i.n. and orally immunized group. However, high antibody levels were detected shortly after the second series of immunization, and the CTA1-conjugated sM2 group induced serum IgG at significant level, compared to sM2-only group and negative controls ( Fig. 2A and B) . Although the conjugation of CTA1 with sM2 was expected to have an adjuvant function only, a significant level of anti-CTA1 antibodies was detected in both the nasal and oral vaccinations ( Fig. 2A and B right panel) . In comparison with the oral group, the nasally immunized group showed higher levels of serum IgG specific to both sM2 and CTA1.
To assess the mucosal immune responses, the local IgA levels were determined by ELISA. Lung and intestinal tissues were collected at day 28 of immunization and examined using sM2 protein as a coating antigen. In both routes of vaccination, pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced significantly increased levels of sM2specific mucosal IgA compared to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups. However, as expected, higher levels of antibody titers were detected at the site of inoculation than at the remote site. A similar pattern of antibody responses was observed for both routes of immunization, in which the pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei groups dominated ( Fig. 2C and D) . These data demonstrated that cholera toxin subunit A1-conjugated sM2 resulted in significant enhancements to the sM2-specific IgG and mucosal IgA levels compared with sM2 alone or with controls immunized with pgsA/ L. casei or PBS.
Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2 Stimulated M2-specific Cellular Immune Response
To determine whether mucosal vaccination with L. casei surfacedisplayed sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 could induce cellular immunity, IFN-c and IL-4 ELISPOT were performed. Splenocytes from vaccinated mice were stimulated with 10 mg/ml of recombinant sM2 protein or M2 peptide, and the cytokine ELISPOTs were developed. The spots were counted to measure the differences in the CTL responses between the groups. Cells from the mice immunized i.n. with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed significant levels of IFN-c in response to stimulation with sM2 protein and M2 peptide (Fig. 3A) . Similarly, we observed that i.n. administered groups both for pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed detectable levels of IL-4 secreting splenocytes following stimulation with either sM2 protein or M2 peptide (Fig. 3B) . IFN-c and IL-4 secreting cells were also observed in mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 3C ) although their levels were lower than i.n. group and were not significant. Control group immunized with pgsA/L. casei showed background spot level for both in intranasal and oral groups. These findings indicate that highly conserved sM2 can induce M2-specific IFN-c and IL-4 secreting T cell responses, while mucosal delivery through L. casei and CTA1 conjugation with sM2 enhanced the cell mediated immunity, which may contribute to broadening the protective immunity.
M2 is known as a potential target for the development of broad spectrum influenza vaccine with minimum variability [36, 37] . To confirm the variability of sM2 sequences of the challenged viruses used in this study, we compared the sM2 of influenza subtypes available from U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) with our consensus sM2 sequence particularly the whole conserved ecto and some portion of cytoplasmic domain (CD) although entire CD was included in vaccine construct (Table 1) . We found that, viruses used in this study contain 0-8 mismatched amino acids among the amino acids of sM2 compared in this study. To evaluate the efficacy of the sM2 vaccine, week after the final immunization, mice were challenged i.n. with the 10 MLD 50 of A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2) influenza virus subtypes that was homologous to the consensus sM2 sequence. Mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/ L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed 40 and 60% protection respectively. Similarly, i.n. immunization groups conferred 40 and 80%, against the lethal infection with highly virulent H5N2 virus. In contrast, none of the unimmunized mice survived after lethal infection ( Fig. 4A and B, right panel) . Morbidity was increased in the mice immunized via oral route, whereas mice that received i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost ,20% of their initial body weight and started recovering by 9 day post infection (dpi) and had completely recovered by day 13 (Fig. 4A and B, left panel) .
We next evaluated the protection efficiency of sM2 vaccine candidate against A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), which contains 8 mismatched amino acids relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Sets of vaccinated mice were challenged with 10 MLD 50 of the H1N1 virus. As shown in figure 4C and D, mice immunized by the The mice were grouped as mentioned in materials and methods and received oral or nasal administrations, according to the schedule. Arrows indicated the immunization routes and periods of pgsA/L. casei, pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells. Sera were collected at days 0, 14 and 28; samples from the lungs and intestines were collected at day 28 after immunization. A week after the final immunization, spleens were excised from 3 mice in each group, with one set for CTL analysis. Two or 24 weeks after the last immunization, all mice were challenged with a lethal dose of influenza subtypes through intranasal route and monitored for 13 days. On days 3 and 5 post infection, the lungs were excised from 3 mice in each group to determine the virus titer. On 5 dpi, the mice from one set were sacrificed for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g001 CTA1-sM2 Induces Protective Immunity to Pathogenic Influenza A Viruses PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org i.n route exhibited a higher level of protection than the orally immunized groups, and mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei showed a significantly higher level of protection compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, right panel) . Unimmunized mice lost up to 40% of their body weight and died by 9 dpi. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost approximately 10% of their body weight, whereas mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei lost .20% of their initial body weight by 9 dpi and recovered more slowly than mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, left panel) .
Another set of vaccinated mice were infected with A/Chicken/ Korea/116/2004(H9N2) to check the range of protection ability of sM2 vaccine induced immune responses. The sM2 sequence of H9N2 contains 2 mismatched relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. The mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight losses and gradual recovery compared to those of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and the unimmunized mice for both the i.n and oral routes (Fig. 4E and F left panel) . None of the unimmunized mice survived, whereas 100% and 80% of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei via the i.n. and oral routes survived, respectively. The survival rates of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei were 80% and 60% for the i.n. and oral routes, respectively ( Fig. 4E and F, right panel) .
The breadth of protection of the sM2 vaccine against divergent influenza subtypes was also evaluated. Set of immunized mice were challenged with high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A/ EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), which contains 2 amino acid mismatches relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Mice immunized via the i.n. and oral routes with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed higher protection efficacies, 80% and 60%, respectively, compared with mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei, for which the rates were 60% and 20%, respectively ( Fig. 4G and H, right panel) . Regarding morbidity, mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed lower morbidity than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4G and H, left panel) . One more set of vaccinated mice were challenged with the A/Aquatic bird/ Korea/W44/2005 (H7N3) virus, which contains 1 mismatch relative to the consensus sM2 sequence, and the body weight and survival were observed for 13 dpi. As shown in figure 4I and J, unimmunized mice lost as much as 30% of their body weight than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4I and J, left panel) . Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei through the i.n route showed significantly higher level of protection against the H7N3 influenza virus than the other groups ( Fig. 4I and J, right panel) . Taken together, the results indicate that i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced immune responses that conferred significant levels of protection against divergent subtypes of influenza viruses containing mismatched amino acids ranging from 0 to 8 of the consensus sM2, regardless of whether it was complete or partial.
Virus titers in the lungs of challenged mice were measured to estimate replication at 3 and 5 dpi. Mice were immunized via the i.n and oral routes with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei and challenged with the H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 or H7N3 influenza subtypes. On 3 and 5 dpi, 3 mice were sacrificed randomly from each group, and their lung virus titers were measured using the TCID 50 method. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei had lower titers at 3 dpi and had significantly reduced viral replication at 5 dpi compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or the control groups at the same time ( Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced viral titers in the lungs were observed in groups of mice immunized via the i.n route relative to the mice immunized via the oral route, particularly at day 3 post infections (Fig. 5) . These reduced titers may be due to routes of vaccination and challenge being the same, and the titers correlated with the survival results for lethal infections with H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 and H7N3. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the consensus sM2 protein fused with CTA1 afforded better protection than sM2, and the i.n route was more potent than the oral route of immunization with regard to protection against a lethal challenge of divergent influenza subtypes.
Histopathology and immunohistochemistry were performed to corroborate the lung virus titer findings. At 5 dpi, lungs were randomly collected from each group of one set, fixed and stained with eosin before being examined under a light microscope. As shown in figure 5K , clear signs of profound pulmonary inflammation were observed in the lungs of mice treated with PBS or pgsA/L. casei for both the oral and i.n routes of administration, whereas the lungs of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed no remarkable pulmonary inflammation compare to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei-treated mice (Fig. 5K, middle and left panel) . For immunohistochemistry, immunoperoxidase method with an antibody directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus was used for the detection of virus infected cells in the respective tissues. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. As shown in figure 5K, at 5 days p.i., numerous virusinfected cells were detected in control or pgsA-sM2/L. casei vaccinated mice, whereas highly reduced number of antigen positive cells were found in the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, both in i.n. and orally immunized group (Fig. 5K right panel) . These results indicate that mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei developed immune responses that are strong enough to inhibit virus replication, which promotes the survival of mice after a lethal infection by influenza A.
The PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei Vaccination Induced Longlasting Cross Protection
The duration of protection is an important criterion for a potential vaccine. Thus, the longevity of the immunity induced by sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 were investigated by detecting serum IgG and mucosal IgA by ELISA. Significantly increase levels of sM2-specific serum IgG as well as lung and intestinal IgA were observed 180 days after vaccination ( Fig. 6A and C) compare to PBS and pgsA/L. casei groups. Mice were challenged with A/ Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), and the body weight changes and survival were monitored until 13 dpi. The unimmunized mice showed .30% body weight loss (Fig. 6B and D left panel) and died by day 9 post infection in both the oral and i.n. groups. In contrast, the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight loss, which was recovered by 13 dpi; 80% survived in the i.n. immunized group (Fig. 6B right panel) , and 60% survived in the orally immunized group (Fig. 6D right panel) . This result indicates that the CTA1conjugated sM2 mucosal vaccine conferred protection against a lethal infection 6 months after the final immunization.
The mucosal immune system is the first immunological barrier against the pathogens that invade the body via the mucosal surface. Thus, the induction of mucosal immunity is necessary to ensure protection against multiple subtypes of influenza A virus. A respiratory virus, influenza A is responsible for annual seasonal epidemics worldwide and, occasionally, pandemics, which are caused by emerging novel subtypes/strains derived through reassortment with avian or porcine viruses. Current influenza vaccines provide strain-specific protection only. Thus, it is crucial to establish a broadly cross-protective influenza vaccine. Antigens that are well conserved among influenza A viruses are considered promising targets for the induction of cross-protection against these different subtypes. However, the goal should be the development of a first line of defense by effectively eliminating pathogens at the mucosal surface. Influenza matrix protein-2 (M2) is relatively well conserved among the influenza subtypes and can be considered a promising influenza vaccine antigen [30] . It consists of the following three structural domains: a 24-amino-acid extracellular domain, a 19-amino-acid transmembrane domain, and a 54-amino-acid cytoplasmic tail domain [39, 40] . The extracellular and cytoplasmic domains, which are well conserved among influenza viruses and play an important role in viral assembly and morphogenesis, were used in this study. Here, we developed sM2 consensus derived from the analysis of sequences of H5N1, H1N1 and H9N2 subtypes in the database. Considering the previous findings that extracellular domain particularly (aa, 1-13) is highly conserved among the influenza virus subtypes and recognized as epitope for the induction of monoclonal antibodies, which could protect influenza virus infection [56] , sM2 backbone sequence from the H5N1 virus were used. For the possible homology among other subtypes we changed at the position of 14 (E-G) and 18 (R-K) and kept unchanged the conserved epitope (aa, 1-13). As shown in sequence alignment, sM2 of consensus sequence has 0-8 mismatches among the subtypes used in this study (Table 1) .
Moreover, the incorporation of an adjuvant is considered essential to boost the interaction of the vaccine with the mucosal immune system [41] . Various adjuvants, such as liposomes, nanoparticles, and immunostimulating complexes (ISCOMs), have been studied and were found to improve the immune response [42] , but their efficacies were not optimal. Despite its potential as a mucosal adjuvant [43] , the use of cholera toxin (CT) in vaccines is limited by its innate toxicity. Thus, the toxicity of CT would have to be separated from its adjuvanticity before it could be used as a vaccine adjuvant. Studies have shown that constructs consisting of M2e fused with cholera toxin subunit A1 along with a strong ADPribosylating agent and a dimer of the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus protein A vaccine elicited complete protection and reduced morbidity [6, 44] . CTA1 retains the adjuvant function of CT without its toxic side effects, such as reactogenicity at the site of its administration and binding to or accumulation in the nervous tissues [45] . Based on previous findings, it has been hypothesized that the consensus sM2 fragment, when fused with the potent mucosal adjuvant CTA1, may induce broad protective immunity against divergent subtypes of influenza virus. In this study, we used the whole 22-kDa CTA1 protein (an ADP ribosyltransferase), which consists of three distinct subdomains: CTA11 (residues 1 to 132), CTA12 (residues 133 to 161), and CTA13 (residues 162 to 192). It has been reported that CTA1 lacking CTB has strong adjuvant activities without any toxicity. CTA1 enhances the IgA and IgG antibody responses, as well as CTL activity [47] .
For the development of a universal mucosal influenza vaccine with a conserved sM2 peptide and potent adjuvant CTA1, recombinant L. casei displaying sM2 fused with or without CTA1
The lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed clear alveoli without inflammatory cell infiltration, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control mice, both of which revealed features of severe pneumonitis (middle and left panel). Reduced number of viral antigen were detected in lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control revealed features of severe pneumonitis with increase virus antigen (right panel). Micrographs are representative for each treatment group at a magnification of 200X. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. In lung titers, bars denote mean 6 S.D. The asterisk indicates a significant difference between pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei and other groups (*P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g005 were constructed for mucosal delivery by the widely used live vaccine vehicle LAB [38] . The pgsA gene used in this study is an anchor for display on the surface of LAB which is derived from the pgsBCA enzyme complex of Bacillus subtilis and consists of transmembrane domain near its N-terminus with the domain located on the outside of the cell membrane. Thus, pgsA is able to cross the cell wall and display the heterologous protein fused to its C-terminus [17] .
The developed vaccines were tested through two major routes. We found that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei was able to induce a significantly higher level of sM2-specific serum IgG ( Fig. 2A and B ) and mucosal IgA (Fig. 2C and D) compared to pgsA-sM2/L. casei, and conferring protection against divergent influenza subtypes of both phylogenetic group 1 (H1, H5, H9) and group 2 (H7) [46] (Fig. 4) . This study also revealed that i.n. administration was superior to the oral route of vaccination, which is consistent with other observations [48] . There may be two possible reasons to explain this phenomenon. First, the challenge route is the same as that of the vaccination; specific mucosal IgA can prevent viral colonization in the respiratory tract. Second, the volume of the inocula was 5 times lower than that for oral inoculation, which may have allowed the concentrated form of the antigen to be presented to immune cells. Because greater levels of serum IgG and mucosal IgA were detected in intranasally immunized mice than in those immunized orally (Fig. 2) , an alternative explanation could be that the antigens are processed and/or presented differently to immune cells in the two mucosal compartments. Importantly, our study demonstrated for the first time that mucosal immunization with the LAB surface-displayed CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate induced broad protection against challenge with divergent influenza subtypes.
However, the mechanism by which Abs against sM2 mediated this broad protection is not fully understood. Previous studies have demonstrated that Abs to the N-terminus of M2e, particularly positions 1-10, inhibited the replication of the influenza A virus [49, 50] . Other studies revealed that anti-M2e IgG-mediated cellular cytotoxicity or phagocytosis can induce the removal of infected cells before progeny virus budding and spread [54, 55] which is supporting our findings of lung virus titer and immunohistochemistry data detected at 5 dpi in our challenge experiments. Therefore, in this study, combination of those responses and Abs to the N-terminus of the sM2 sequence which is conserved among the challenge viruses (Table 1 ) may protect the divergent influenza subtypes after mucosal immunization with the recombinant LAB CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate. Moreover, the cellular immune response plays an important role in controlling viral replication. We examined the Th1-type (IFN-c) and Th2-type (IL-4) cytokine responses by the ELISPOT assay. Significantly higher levels of IFN-c were detected in response to stimulation with both the sM2 protein and M2 peptide in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei compared to the levels in mice in the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups ( Fig. 3A and C) . Similarly, substantially high levels of IL-4 were observed in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei upon stimulation with the sM2 protein and M2 peptide ( Fig. 3B and D) . These results further support the findings that the antibodies and cell-mediated cytotoxicity were specific to the M2 antigen and that their anti-viral activities were induced by monomeric M2, three copies of M2 fused with ASP-1 [34, 51, 52] . Together, these results indicate that sM2 adjuvanted with fused CTA1 induced immune responses in mice, which protected them from divergent influenza subtypes. In this regard, our results have significance for the use of CTA1, which has adjuvant function, in vaccine candidates.
As clinical protection is not the only parameter by which vaccine performance is assessed, we evaluated the immunogenicity of the recombinant LAB vaccine on the basis of other parameters, such as the reduction of pathological lesions and virus shedding. In this study, low titers of the challenge virus were titrated from the lungs after vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, whereas challenge virus could be detected at higher titers in the mock mice and those vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced gross and histopathological lesions consistent with viral infection are the primary parameters indicative of influenza vaccine efficacy. Here, we demonstrated that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei remarkably limited the severity of the damage by inhibiting viral replication and the accumulation of inflammatory cells and virus antigen in the lung alveolar tissues, relative to the severity in the unimmunized mice and the mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5K) .
Our study further demonstrated, for the first time, that recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-sM2 induced long-lasting immunity and conferred protection against lethal infections by influenza, even at 6 months after the final vaccination (Fig. 6) , which is important for any successful vaccine. Similar results were observed in previous studies, in which M2 VLP conferred longterm immunity and cross protection and the antibodies in the sera and mucosal sites were long lived [53, 54] .
In conclusion, our findings revealed that the mucosal immunization of mice with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated sM2 can induce systemic and local, as well as cellmediated, immune responses against divergent influenza virus subtypes. Thus, the recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated consensus sM2 mucosal vaccine may be a promising vaccine candidate for influenza pandemic preparedness. | Why is matrix protein 2 (M2) an attractive target for a universal influenza vaccine? | {
"answer_start": [
2838
],
"text": [
"highly conserved among influenza A virus strains"
]
} | false |
5,186 | Mucosal Vaccination with Recombinant Lactobacillus casei-Displayed CTA1-Conjugated Consensus Matrix Protein-2 (sM2) Induces Broad Protection against Divergent Influenza Subtypes in BALB/c Mice
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979752/
SHA: efaa556b484fbcd9cc34832ffac53ef3e834e9c0
Authors: Chowdhury, Mohammed Y. E.; Li, Rui; Kim, Jae-Hoon; Park, Min-Eun; Kim, Tae-Hwan; Pathinayake, Prabuddha; Weeratunga, Prasanna; Song, Man Ki; Son, Hwa-Young; Hong, Seung-Pyo; Sung, Moon-Hee; Lee, Jong-Soo; Kim, Chul-Joong
Date: 2014-04-08
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094051
License: cc-by
Abstract: To develop a safe and effective mucosal vaccine against pathogenic influenza viruses, we constructed recombinant Lactobacillus casei strains that express conserved matrix protein 2 with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei) or without (pgsA-sM2/L. casei) cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) on the surface. The surface localization of the fusion protein was verified by cellular fractionation analyses, flow cytometry and immunofluorescence microscopy. Oral and nasal inoculations of recombinant L. casei into mice resulted in high levels of serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) and mucosal IgA. However, the conjugation of cholera toxin subunit A1 induced more potent mucosal, humoral and cell-mediated immune responses. In a challenge test with 10 MLD(50) of A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird /Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) viruses, the recombinant pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei provided better protection against lethal challenges than pgsA-sM2/L. casei, pgsA/L. casei and PBS in mice. These results indicate that mucosal immunization with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-conjugated sM2 protein on its surface is an effective means of eliciting protective immune responses against diverse influenza subtypes.
Text: Vaccination remains most economical and effective means against respiratory diseases caused by influenza viruses [1] . Based on the circulating viruses in the population, trivalent vaccine strains have been developed and are used for the influenza virus protection [2] . The most acceptable current available strategy is the intramuscular administration of inactivated vaccines produced by egg-based manufacturing systems which while effective, are hampered by limited capacity and flexibility [3] . However, vaccine strains must be frequently adapted to match the circulating viruses throughout the world [4] . In addition, the levels of antibody induced by the inactivated vaccine have been observed to decrease by 75% over an 8-month period [2, 5] . Therefore, alternative strategies for developing broadly cross-protective, safe and effective vaccines against influenza viral infections are of prominent importance.
Matrix protein 2 (M2) is highly conserved among influenza A virus strains, indicating that M2 is an attractive target for developing a universal vaccine [6] . In previous studies, various constructs of the M2 vaccine have been developed and tested, including recombinant Escherichia coli (E. coli) expressing M2 fusion protein, adenoviral vectors expressing the M2 protein, plasmid DNA encoding M2 [7] [8] [9] and peptides encoding M2e [11] , each of which was able to elicit protective immune responses in mice. However, the drawback of these M2-based vaccines is their low immunogenicity; additionally, most of them would require intramuscular injections. Therefore, many strategies have been applied focusing on increasing the immunogenicity of M2-based vaccines, for example, fusion of M2 with different carrier molecules like human papilloma virus L protein [12] , keyhole limpet hemocyanin [10] and flagellin [13] . Furthermore, vaccinations with different adjuvants and routes of administration have been applied to evaluate their protection against divergent strains of influenza viruses. Mice immunized mucosally with an M2 or virus like particles (VLPs) adjuvanted with cholera toxin (CT) demonstrated better protection compared to mice subjected to parenteral immunization [14, 15] . However, due to the adverse effects of CT in humans, investigators have attempted to identify nontoxic subunits with adjuvanticity by removing either subunit A or subunit B [16] . E. coli expressing cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) fused with the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus showed the adjuvant effects without any reactogenicity of the A1 subunit in the mucosal vaccine [6] . Although, chemical or genetic conjugation of M2 may not present M2 in its native tetrameric form, extracellularly accessible antigens expressed on the surfaces of bacteria are better recognized by the immune system than those that are intracellular [17] . Thus, choice of delivery vehicle is also an important concern for potential mucosal vaccines.
Recently, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) presenting influenza virus antigens have been studied [3, 18, 19] . For mucosal immunization, LAB is a more attractive delivery system than other live vaccine vectors, such as Shigella, Salmonella, and Listeria [20, 21] . It is considered safe and exhibits an adjuvant-like effect on mucosal and systemic immunity [18, 22, 23] . Anchoring of the target protein to the cell surfaces of LAB is primarily intended to use in mucosal vaccines. The transmembrane protein pgsA is one of the poly-cglutamate synthetase complexes of Bacillus subtilis [17, 24, 25] , which is a well-studied anchor protein is able to fuse the target protein to its C terminus and stabilize the complex by anchoring it in the cell membrane. Since sM2 is a highly conserved and promising target for a universal vaccine and CTA1 is strong mucosal adjuvant, in this study, we developed constructs using a consensus sM2 gene reconstituted from the analysis of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2 influenza viruses (no trans-membrane domain) with or without the fusion of CTA1. To achieve this, we used a novel expression vector that can express a pgsA gene product as an anchoring matrix. Our target antigens, sM2 and CTA1, were displayed on the surface of Lactobacillus casei, and the oral or intranasal administration of recombinant L. casei induced systemic and mucosal immune responses that have the potential to protect against the lethal challenges of divergent influenza subtypes.
A total of 672 female BALB/c mice (5 weeks old) were purchased from Samtako (Seoul, Korea) and housed in ventilated cages. The mice were managed with pelleted feed and tap water ad libitum, maintained in a specific-pathogen-free environment and all efforts were made to minimize suffering following approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of of Bioleaders Corporation, Daejeon, South Korea, protocol number: BSL-ABLS-13-002. Immunizations of animal were conducted in biosafety level (BSL)-2 laboratory facilities. Mice were divided into 6 experimental sets, each consisting of 2 subsets: 1 for oral and 1 for intranasal administration which contained 4 groups each. Out of 6, 4 sets had 14 mice per group. One sets had 17 (3 mice for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry), and the last contained 11 mice per group (3 mice for CTL response).
Concentrations of recombinant L. casei were determined by colony forming units (CFU). In each subset, 2 groups received 10 10 CFU of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, and the remaining two groups received the same concentration of pKV-pgsA/L. casei or PBS in 100 ml orally via intragastric lavage at days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21 to 23. Similarly, 10 9 CFU of recombinant cells were administered in 20 ml suspensions into the nostrils of lightly anesthetized mice on days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21. Blood samples were collected from the retro-orbital plexus at days 21, 14 and 28; sera were separated by centrifugation for 5 minutes at 12,0006g and stored at 220uC until analysis. At day 28, 3 mice in each group were randomly sacrificed to collect IgA sample from lungs and intestine and stored at 270uC until analysis. Spleens were collected aseptically at day 28 for the analysis of the CTL response randomly from 3 mice of one set. The rest of the mice from the same set were maintained for 6 months from the date of the last boosting to measure the long-lasting immune responses and protection efficacy.
The avian influenza viruses A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/ Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) used in this study were kindly provided by Dr. Young-Ki Choi (College of Medicine and Medical Research Institute, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea). All viruses were propagated in the allantoic fluid of 10-day-old chicken embryos, and 50% mouse lethal doses (MLD 50 ) were determined in 8-week-old naive BALB/ c mice. Ether narcosis-anesthetized mice were intranasally infected with 10 times the MLD 50 of challenge viruses in 20 ml of PBS. Six mice in each group were sacrificed on 3 and 5 dpi to check virus titer in lungs and other 5 mice remained in each group have been used for survival. Mice were monitored every alternate day at fixed time point for measuring the weight loss and survival. Mice were euthanized if moribund, i.e. weight loss, ruffled fur, shivering, tachypnea, respiratory distress, hypothermia and poorly responsive to external stimuli, remaining were considered as survival number. After final monitoring, all the survived mice were humanely euthanized using CO 2 inhalation for 5 minutes.
At 180 days after the final vaccination, mice from one set were challenged with H5N2 for measuring the long lasting immune responses. All challenge tests were conducted inside an approved BSL-3+ facility under appropriate conditions. Bacterial Strains and Cloning for the Construction of Recombinant Plasmid PgsA-sM2/L. casei and PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei In this study, E. coli JM83 was used for cloning and L. casei L525 was used for surface expression of the target protein. These bacteria were grown in LB and MRS media, respectively. The plasmid pKV-Pald-PgsA, harboring the pgsA genes of Bacillus subtilis, was used to construct the surface display plasmid, which was a kind gift from the Bioleaders Corporation (Daejeon, South Korea). A gene encoding the consensus sequence of M2 spanning the residues of the extracellular and cytoplasmic domains without the transmembrane domain of influenza virus was generated. The consensus sequences were created based on the most common amino acids in each position of the alignment of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2; then, they were synthesized and used as templates for the construction of the plasmids pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei by cloning, as described previously [26, 27] . The sM2 gene was modified by adding a Kpn I site at the 59 terminal and Sal I at the 39 terminal for cloning. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed to amplify the gene using the primer pair 59-GGGGTACCTCATTATTAACA-39, and 59-ACGTCGACT-CATTATTCAAGTTCAATAATG AC-39. Similarly, a BamH I site at the 59 terminal and a Kpn I site at the 39 terminal end were added to the CTA1 gene using primers 59-CGGGATCCAAT-GATGATAAGTTATAT-39 and 59-GGGT ACCCGAT-GATCTTGGAGC ATT-39. The modified genes were ligated into the T Easy Vector (Invitrogen, Seoul, Korea). Genes were then digested with Kpn I-Sal I for sM2 and BamH I-Kpn I for CTA1. The digested sM2 was ligated to the plasmid vector pKV-pgsA for the construction of pKV-pgsA-sM2. Similarly, CTA1 was ligated for the construction of pKV-pgsA-CTA1-sM2. The ligated products were transformed into E. coli JM83 competent cells, as previously described, using an electroporation method [17] . The profiles of the recombinant plasmids were confirmed by restriction endonuclease digestion and DNA sequencing (Solgent, Seoul, Korea). After confirmation, the plasmids were transformed into L. casei L525 by electroporation and named pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei.
The recombinant L. casei containing pgsA, pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 genes were grown at 30uC for 48 hours. Cells were harvested by centrifugation at 6,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, followed by washing two times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Bacterial lyses were performed by sonication and centrifuged at 12,0006g for 20 minutes at 4uC. Cell wall and cytoplasmic fractions were separated by centrifugation at 25,0006g at 4uC for 2 hours. Pellets (cell wall) were resuspended in 100 ml of 1% sarcosol containing 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) as a protease inhibitor. Fractions were analyzed by western blotting, as described previously. For the immune detection of fusion proteins, the membranes were probed with rabbit anti-cholera toxin (1:2000, Abcam, UK), rabbit anti-pgsA (1:1000) and rabbit anti-M2 (1:1000) antibodies. The rabbit anti-pgsA and rabbit anti-M2 antibodies used in this experiment were generated by the i.m. inoculation of KLH-conjugated pgsA or M2 peptide in rabbit, respectively, two times at 2 weeks-interval. The membranes were reacted with a 1:10,000 dilution of anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (IgG HRP). Finally, the target proteins were detected using the WEST-ZOL plus Western Blot Detection System (iNtRON Biotechnology, Gyeonggi-do, Korea) and visualized by enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) [17, 26, 28] .
To investigate the expression of sM2 or CTA1-sM2 on the surface of L. casei, recombinant L. casei were grown in 30uC for 48 hours in the MRS broth. Bacteria were harvested by centrifugation at 5,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, washed three times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline containing 0.01% Tween-20 (PBST) and probed with polyclonal rabbit anti-M2 or rabbit anti-CT antibody overnight. Following another washing, the cells were treated with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)conjugated anti-rabbit IgG antibodies (Burlingame, CA, USA) for 2 hours. Finally, 10,000 cells were analyzed by flow cytometry (Becton Dickinson, Oxnard, CA, USA). For the immunofluorescence, cells were prepared under the same condition described for the flow cytometry. The pgsA/L. casei was used as a negative control and Immunofluoresence analysis was examined using a Carl Zeiss Axioskop 2 fluorescence microscope.
ELISA Antibody titers were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using serum or mucosal samples from vaccinated mice. First, 96-well immunosorbent plates (Nunc) were incubated with 300 ng/well purified sM2 or CTA1 proteins at 4uC overnight. The recombinant sM2 and CTA1 proteins used in this study were purified from E. coli. Next, the wells were blocked with 10% skim milk for 2 hours in RT, washed five times with PBST, treated with diluted serum samples (1:200) in triplicate for detecting IgG and undiluted tissue homogenized supernatant for detecting local IgA and incubated for 2 hours at 37uC. After washing three times, goat anti-mouse IgG HRP (1:1000, sigma) or anti-mouse IgA was added to each well and incubated for an additional 2 hours at 37uC. Following another round of washing, the plates were reacted with the substrate solution containing tetramethylbenzidine and H 2 O 2 and allowed to precede the reaction for 10 minutes. After adding the stop solution 2N-H 2 SO 4 , the optical density (OD) was measured at 450 nm using an ELISA autoreader (Molecular devices).
The development and counting of cytokines were performed by ELISPOTs, as described previously [31, 32] . Briefly, the day before the isolation of splenocytes, ELISPOT 96-well plates were coated with monoclonal anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 capture antibodies (5 mg/ml) in PBS and incubated at 4uC overnight. The plates were washed with PBS, and 200 ml/well of blocking solution containing complete RPMI 1640 medium and 10% fetal bovine serum, was added (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and incubated for 2 hours in RT. Spleens from the vaccinated mice were isolated aseptically and added at 5610 4 cells/well in media containing sM2 protein, M2 peptide (SLLTEVETPTRNGWECKCSD) (1 mg/well), only medium (negative control), or 5 mg/ml phytohemagglutinin (positive control, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). After adding cells and stimulators, the plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37uC with 5% CO 2 . The plates were sequentially treated with biotinylated anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 antibodies, streptavidinhorseradish peroxidase, and substrate solution. Finally, the spots were counted using an ImmunoScan Entry analyzer (Cellular Technology, Shaker Heights, USA).
The lungs were collected aseptically, and virus titers were determined by 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID 50 ), as described previously [33] . Briefly, lung tissues were homogenized in 500 ml of PBS containing antibiotics (penicillin, and streptomycin) and antimycotics (Fungizone) compounds (Gibco, Grand Island, NY, USA). Mechanically homogenized lung samples were centrifuged (15 minutes, 12,0006g and 4uC) to remove the cellular debris before their storage at 280uC. MDCK cells were inoculated with a 10-fold serially diluted sample and incubated at 37uC in a humid atmosphere of 5% CO 2 for an hour. After absorption, the media was removed, and overlay medium containing L-1-tosylamido-2-phenylethyl chloromethyl ketone (TPCK) trypsin (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rockford, USA) was added to the infected cells and incubated for 72 hours. Viral cytopathic effects were observed daily, and the titers were determined by the HA test. The viral titer of each sample was expressed as 50% tissue infected doses using the Reed-Muench method [34] .
For histopathology, lung tissues were collected at 5 dpi from ether narcosis-anesthetized mice. Tissues were immediately fixed in 10% formalin containing neutral buffer, embedded in paraffin wax, sectioned at 4-6 mm thickness using a microtome machine, mounted onto slides, and stained with eosin stain. Histopathological changes were examined by light microscopy, as previously described [29, 30, 35] . Furthermore, slides were stained using an immunoperoxidase method with an antibody (rabbit anti-M2, 1:500) directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus. A Goat-anti-rabbit IgG HRP (1:2000, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) was used as the secondary antibody for the detection of virus infected cells in respective tissues [57] .
Data are presented as the means 6 standard deviations (S.D.) and are representative of at least three independent experiments. Differences between groups were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), and means were compared by Student's t-test. P-values less than 0.05 were regarded as significant. Results for percent initial body weight were also compared by using Student's t test.
Comparison of survival was done by log-rank test using GraphPad Prism 6 version.
The pgsA-expressing vector was used to construct plasmids containing the highly conserved consensus sM2 gene, with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2) or without (pgsA-sM2) the cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1, Fig. 1A ). Plasmids were transformed into L. casei cells. The expression levels of pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were monitored by immunoblotting using anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies (data not shown).
To determine the cellular localization of the sM2 and CTA1 proteins expressed on the surface of L. casei via the cell wall anchor protein pgsA, membrane and cytoplasmic fractions were subjected to western blot analysis. As expected, both pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins were detected by anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies in the membrane, not in cytoplasmic fractions (Fig. 1B, lane 2, 3 and 4) . Immunoreactions were performed with anti-pgsA, and bands representing the size of the fused proteins pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were detected, while during the reactions with anti-M2 or anti-CT antibodies, no other bands were detected (Fig. 1B, lane 3 and 4) . This finding may have resulted from the degradation that occurs during the membrane fractionation procedure.
Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and immunofluorescence labeling of the cells were used to verify the localization of the fusion pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 protein on the surface of L. casei. Flow cytometric analysis using rabbit anti-M2 and anti-CT antibodies revealed increase level of fluorescence intensity of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells, compared to that of control L. casei cells (Fig. 1C ). Immunofluorescence microscopy also showed recombinant bacteria harboring pgsA-sM2 or pgsA-CTA1-sM2 that immunostained positive for sM2 and CTA1, but this was not found in control cells. These results demonstrated that recombinant L. casei could efficiently display the sM2 and CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins on the surface, using pgsA as a membrane anchor protein.
Immune Responses Induced by Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface Displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2
Preliminary experiment was conducted to determine the doses and schedule of pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei vaccine candidate on influenza virus protection (data not shown). To characterize the immunogenicity of the L. casei surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1conjugated sM2, BALB/c mice were immunized nasally (10 9 cells/20 ml dose) or orally (10 10 cells/100 ml dose) with recombinant live pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei bacteria. As a negative control, mice were immunized with L. casei harboring the parental plasmid pKV-pgsA (pgsA/L. casei) and PBS. Serum samples were collected at 0, 14 and 28 days and analyzed by ELISA, using sM2 and CTA1 proteins (purified from E. coli) as a coating antigen. After the first series of immunization, comparatively low levels of serum IgG were detected both in the i.n. and orally immunized group. However, high antibody levels were detected shortly after the second series of immunization, and the CTA1-conjugated sM2 group induced serum IgG at significant level, compared to sM2-only group and negative controls ( Fig. 2A and B) . Although the conjugation of CTA1 with sM2 was expected to have an adjuvant function only, a significant level of anti-CTA1 antibodies was detected in both the nasal and oral vaccinations ( Fig. 2A and B right panel) . In comparison with the oral group, the nasally immunized group showed higher levels of serum IgG specific to both sM2 and CTA1.
To assess the mucosal immune responses, the local IgA levels were determined by ELISA. Lung and intestinal tissues were collected at day 28 of immunization and examined using sM2 protein as a coating antigen. In both routes of vaccination, pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced significantly increased levels of sM2specific mucosal IgA compared to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups. However, as expected, higher levels of antibody titers were detected at the site of inoculation than at the remote site. A similar pattern of antibody responses was observed for both routes of immunization, in which the pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei groups dominated ( Fig. 2C and D) . These data demonstrated that cholera toxin subunit A1-conjugated sM2 resulted in significant enhancements to the sM2-specific IgG and mucosal IgA levels compared with sM2 alone or with controls immunized with pgsA/ L. casei or PBS.
Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2 Stimulated M2-specific Cellular Immune Response
To determine whether mucosal vaccination with L. casei surfacedisplayed sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 could induce cellular immunity, IFN-c and IL-4 ELISPOT were performed. Splenocytes from vaccinated mice were stimulated with 10 mg/ml of recombinant sM2 protein or M2 peptide, and the cytokine ELISPOTs were developed. The spots were counted to measure the differences in the CTL responses between the groups. Cells from the mice immunized i.n. with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed significant levels of IFN-c in response to stimulation with sM2 protein and M2 peptide (Fig. 3A) . Similarly, we observed that i.n. administered groups both for pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed detectable levels of IL-4 secreting splenocytes following stimulation with either sM2 protein or M2 peptide (Fig. 3B) . IFN-c and IL-4 secreting cells were also observed in mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 3C ) although their levels were lower than i.n. group and were not significant. Control group immunized with pgsA/L. casei showed background spot level for both in intranasal and oral groups. These findings indicate that highly conserved sM2 can induce M2-specific IFN-c and IL-4 secreting T cell responses, while mucosal delivery through L. casei and CTA1 conjugation with sM2 enhanced the cell mediated immunity, which may contribute to broadening the protective immunity.
M2 is known as a potential target for the development of broad spectrum influenza vaccine with minimum variability [36, 37] . To confirm the variability of sM2 sequences of the challenged viruses used in this study, we compared the sM2 of influenza subtypes available from U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) with our consensus sM2 sequence particularly the whole conserved ecto and some portion of cytoplasmic domain (CD) although entire CD was included in vaccine construct (Table 1) . We found that, viruses used in this study contain 0-8 mismatched amino acids among the amino acids of sM2 compared in this study. To evaluate the efficacy of the sM2 vaccine, week after the final immunization, mice were challenged i.n. with the 10 MLD 50 of A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2) influenza virus subtypes that was homologous to the consensus sM2 sequence. Mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/ L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed 40 and 60% protection respectively. Similarly, i.n. immunization groups conferred 40 and 80%, against the lethal infection with highly virulent H5N2 virus. In contrast, none of the unimmunized mice survived after lethal infection ( Fig. 4A and B, right panel) . Morbidity was increased in the mice immunized via oral route, whereas mice that received i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost ,20% of their initial body weight and started recovering by 9 day post infection (dpi) and had completely recovered by day 13 (Fig. 4A and B, left panel) .
We next evaluated the protection efficiency of sM2 vaccine candidate against A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), which contains 8 mismatched amino acids relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Sets of vaccinated mice were challenged with 10 MLD 50 of the H1N1 virus. As shown in figure 4C and D, mice immunized by the The mice were grouped as mentioned in materials and methods and received oral or nasal administrations, according to the schedule. Arrows indicated the immunization routes and periods of pgsA/L. casei, pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells. Sera were collected at days 0, 14 and 28; samples from the lungs and intestines were collected at day 28 after immunization. A week after the final immunization, spleens were excised from 3 mice in each group, with one set for CTL analysis. Two or 24 weeks after the last immunization, all mice were challenged with a lethal dose of influenza subtypes through intranasal route and monitored for 13 days. On days 3 and 5 post infection, the lungs were excised from 3 mice in each group to determine the virus titer. On 5 dpi, the mice from one set were sacrificed for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g001 CTA1-sM2 Induces Protective Immunity to Pathogenic Influenza A Viruses PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org i.n route exhibited a higher level of protection than the orally immunized groups, and mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei showed a significantly higher level of protection compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, right panel) . Unimmunized mice lost up to 40% of their body weight and died by 9 dpi. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost approximately 10% of their body weight, whereas mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei lost .20% of their initial body weight by 9 dpi and recovered more slowly than mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, left panel) .
Another set of vaccinated mice were infected with A/Chicken/ Korea/116/2004(H9N2) to check the range of protection ability of sM2 vaccine induced immune responses. The sM2 sequence of H9N2 contains 2 mismatched relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. The mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight losses and gradual recovery compared to those of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and the unimmunized mice for both the i.n and oral routes (Fig. 4E and F left panel) . None of the unimmunized mice survived, whereas 100% and 80% of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei via the i.n. and oral routes survived, respectively. The survival rates of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei were 80% and 60% for the i.n. and oral routes, respectively ( Fig. 4E and F, right panel) .
The breadth of protection of the sM2 vaccine against divergent influenza subtypes was also evaluated. Set of immunized mice were challenged with high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A/ EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), which contains 2 amino acid mismatches relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Mice immunized via the i.n. and oral routes with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed higher protection efficacies, 80% and 60%, respectively, compared with mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei, for which the rates were 60% and 20%, respectively ( Fig. 4G and H, right panel) . Regarding morbidity, mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed lower morbidity than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4G and H, left panel) . One more set of vaccinated mice were challenged with the A/Aquatic bird/ Korea/W44/2005 (H7N3) virus, which contains 1 mismatch relative to the consensus sM2 sequence, and the body weight and survival were observed for 13 dpi. As shown in figure 4I and J, unimmunized mice lost as much as 30% of their body weight than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4I and J, left panel) . Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei through the i.n route showed significantly higher level of protection against the H7N3 influenza virus than the other groups ( Fig. 4I and J, right panel) . Taken together, the results indicate that i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced immune responses that conferred significant levels of protection against divergent subtypes of influenza viruses containing mismatched amino acids ranging from 0 to 8 of the consensus sM2, regardless of whether it was complete or partial.
Virus titers in the lungs of challenged mice were measured to estimate replication at 3 and 5 dpi. Mice were immunized via the i.n and oral routes with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei and challenged with the H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 or H7N3 influenza subtypes. On 3 and 5 dpi, 3 mice were sacrificed randomly from each group, and their lung virus titers were measured using the TCID 50 method. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei had lower titers at 3 dpi and had significantly reduced viral replication at 5 dpi compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or the control groups at the same time ( Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced viral titers in the lungs were observed in groups of mice immunized via the i.n route relative to the mice immunized via the oral route, particularly at day 3 post infections (Fig. 5) . These reduced titers may be due to routes of vaccination and challenge being the same, and the titers correlated with the survival results for lethal infections with H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 and H7N3. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the consensus sM2 protein fused with CTA1 afforded better protection than sM2, and the i.n route was more potent than the oral route of immunization with regard to protection against a lethal challenge of divergent influenza subtypes.
Histopathology and immunohistochemistry were performed to corroborate the lung virus titer findings. At 5 dpi, lungs were randomly collected from each group of one set, fixed and stained with eosin before being examined under a light microscope. As shown in figure 5K , clear signs of profound pulmonary inflammation were observed in the lungs of mice treated with PBS or pgsA/L. casei for both the oral and i.n routes of administration, whereas the lungs of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed no remarkable pulmonary inflammation compare to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei-treated mice (Fig. 5K, middle and left panel) . For immunohistochemistry, immunoperoxidase method with an antibody directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus was used for the detection of virus infected cells in the respective tissues. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. As shown in figure 5K, at 5 days p.i., numerous virusinfected cells were detected in control or pgsA-sM2/L. casei vaccinated mice, whereas highly reduced number of antigen positive cells were found in the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, both in i.n. and orally immunized group (Fig. 5K right panel) . These results indicate that mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei developed immune responses that are strong enough to inhibit virus replication, which promotes the survival of mice after a lethal infection by influenza A.
The PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei Vaccination Induced Longlasting Cross Protection
The duration of protection is an important criterion for a potential vaccine. Thus, the longevity of the immunity induced by sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 were investigated by detecting serum IgG and mucosal IgA by ELISA. Significantly increase levels of sM2-specific serum IgG as well as lung and intestinal IgA were observed 180 days after vaccination ( Fig. 6A and C) compare to PBS and pgsA/L. casei groups. Mice were challenged with A/ Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), and the body weight changes and survival were monitored until 13 dpi. The unimmunized mice showed .30% body weight loss (Fig. 6B and D left panel) and died by day 9 post infection in both the oral and i.n. groups. In contrast, the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight loss, which was recovered by 13 dpi; 80% survived in the i.n. immunized group (Fig. 6B right panel) , and 60% survived in the orally immunized group (Fig. 6D right panel) . This result indicates that the CTA1conjugated sM2 mucosal vaccine conferred protection against a lethal infection 6 months after the final immunization.
The mucosal immune system is the first immunological barrier against the pathogens that invade the body via the mucosal surface. Thus, the induction of mucosal immunity is necessary to ensure protection against multiple subtypes of influenza A virus. A respiratory virus, influenza A is responsible for annual seasonal epidemics worldwide and, occasionally, pandemics, which are caused by emerging novel subtypes/strains derived through reassortment with avian or porcine viruses. Current influenza vaccines provide strain-specific protection only. Thus, it is crucial to establish a broadly cross-protective influenza vaccine. Antigens that are well conserved among influenza A viruses are considered promising targets for the induction of cross-protection against these different subtypes. However, the goal should be the development of a first line of defense by effectively eliminating pathogens at the mucosal surface. Influenza matrix protein-2 (M2) is relatively well conserved among the influenza subtypes and can be considered a promising influenza vaccine antigen [30] . It consists of the following three structural domains: a 24-amino-acid extracellular domain, a 19-amino-acid transmembrane domain, and a 54-amino-acid cytoplasmic tail domain [39, 40] . The extracellular and cytoplasmic domains, which are well conserved among influenza viruses and play an important role in viral assembly and morphogenesis, were used in this study. Here, we developed sM2 consensus derived from the analysis of sequences of H5N1, H1N1 and H9N2 subtypes in the database. Considering the previous findings that extracellular domain particularly (aa, 1-13) is highly conserved among the influenza virus subtypes and recognized as epitope for the induction of monoclonal antibodies, which could protect influenza virus infection [56] , sM2 backbone sequence from the H5N1 virus were used. For the possible homology among other subtypes we changed at the position of 14 (E-G) and 18 (R-K) and kept unchanged the conserved epitope (aa, 1-13). As shown in sequence alignment, sM2 of consensus sequence has 0-8 mismatches among the subtypes used in this study (Table 1) .
Moreover, the incorporation of an adjuvant is considered essential to boost the interaction of the vaccine with the mucosal immune system [41] . Various adjuvants, such as liposomes, nanoparticles, and immunostimulating complexes (ISCOMs), have been studied and were found to improve the immune response [42] , but their efficacies were not optimal. Despite its potential as a mucosal adjuvant [43] , the use of cholera toxin (CT) in vaccines is limited by its innate toxicity. Thus, the toxicity of CT would have to be separated from its adjuvanticity before it could be used as a vaccine adjuvant. Studies have shown that constructs consisting of M2e fused with cholera toxin subunit A1 along with a strong ADPribosylating agent and a dimer of the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus protein A vaccine elicited complete protection and reduced morbidity [6, 44] . CTA1 retains the adjuvant function of CT without its toxic side effects, such as reactogenicity at the site of its administration and binding to or accumulation in the nervous tissues [45] . Based on previous findings, it has been hypothesized that the consensus sM2 fragment, when fused with the potent mucosal adjuvant CTA1, may induce broad protective immunity against divergent subtypes of influenza virus. In this study, we used the whole 22-kDa CTA1 protein (an ADP ribosyltransferase), which consists of three distinct subdomains: CTA11 (residues 1 to 132), CTA12 (residues 133 to 161), and CTA13 (residues 162 to 192). It has been reported that CTA1 lacking CTB has strong adjuvant activities without any toxicity. CTA1 enhances the IgA and IgG antibody responses, as well as CTL activity [47] .
For the development of a universal mucosal influenza vaccine with a conserved sM2 peptide and potent adjuvant CTA1, recombinant L. casei displaying sM2 fused with or without CTA1
The lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed clear alveoli without inflammatory cell infiltration, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control mice, both of which revealed features of severe pneumonitis (middle and left panel). Reduced number of viral antigen were detected in lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control revealed features of severe pneumonitis with increase virus antigen (right panel). Micrographs are representative for each treatment group at a magnification of 200X. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. In lung titers, bars denote mean 6 S.D. The asterisk indicates a significant difference between pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei and other groups (*P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g005 were constructed for mucosal delivery by the widely used live vaccine vehicle LAB [38] . The pgsA gene used in this study is an anchor for display on the surface of LAB which is derived from the pgsBCA enzyme complex of Bacillus subtilis and consists of transmembrane domain near its N-terminus with the domain located on the outside of the cell membrane. Thus, pgsA is able to cross the cell wall and display the heterologous protein fused to its C-terminus [17] .
The developed vaccines were tested through two major routes. We found that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei was able to induce a significantly higher level of sM2-specific serum IgG ( Fig. 2A and B ) and mucosal IgA (Fig. 2C and D) compared to pgsA-sM2/L. casei, and conferring protection against divergent influenza subtypes of both phylogenetic group 1 (H1, H5, H9) and group 2 (H7) [46] (Fig. 4) . This study also revealed that i.n. administration was superior to the oral route of vaccination, which is consistent with other observations [48] . There may be two possible reasons to explain this phenomenon. First, the challenge route is the same as that of the vaccination; specific mucosal IgA can prevent viral colonization in the respiratory tract. Second, the volume of the inocula was 5 times lower than that for oral inoculation, which may have allowed the concentrated form of the antigen to be presented to immune cells. Because greater levels of serum IgG and mucosal IgA were detected in intranasally immunized mice than in those immunized orally (Fig. 2) , an alternative explanation could be that the antigens are processed and/or presented differently to immune cells in the two mucosal compartments. Importantly, our study demonstrated for the first time that mucosal immunization with the LAB surface-displayed CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate induced broad protection against challenge with divergent influenza subtypes.
However, the mechanism by which Abs against sM2 mediated this broad protection is not fully understood. Previous studies have demonstrated that Abs to the N-terminus of M2e, particularly positions 1-10, inhibited the replication of the influenza A virus [49, 50] . Other studies revealed that anti-M2e IgG-mediated cellular cytotoxicity or phagocytosis can induce the removal of infected cells before progeny virus budding and spread [54, 55] which is supporting our findings of lung virus titer and immunohistochemistry data detected at 5 dpi in our challenge experiments. Therefore, in this study, combination of those responses and Abs to the N-terminus of the sM2 sequence which is conserved among the challenge viruses (Table 1 ) may protect the divergent influenza subtypes after mucosal immunization with the recombinant LAB CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate. Moreover, the cellular immune response plays an important role in controlling viral replication. We examined the Th1-type (IFN-c) and Th2-type (IL-4) cytokine responses by the ELISPOT assay. Significantly higher levels of IFN-c were detected in response to stimulation with both the sM2 protein and M2 peptide in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei compared to the levels in mice in the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups ( Fig. 3A and C) . Similarly, substantially high levels of IL-4 were observed in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei upon stimulation with the sM2 protein and M2 peptide ( Fig. 3B and D) . These results further support the findings that the antibodies and cell-mediated cytotoxicity were specific to the M2 antigen and that their anti-viral activities were induced by monomeric M2, three copies of M2 fused with ASP-1 [34, 51, 52] . Together, these results indicate that sM2 adjuvanted with fused CTA1 induced immune responses in mice, which protected them from divergent influenza subtypes. In this regard, our results have significance for the use of CTA1, which has adjuvant function, in vaccine candidates.
As clinical protection is not the only parameter by which vaccine performance is assessed, we evaluated the immunogenicity of the recombinant LAB vaccine on the basis of other parameters, such as the reduction of pathological lesions and virus shedding. In this study, low titers of the challenge virus were titrated from the lungs after vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, whereas challenge virus could be detected at higher titers in the mock mice and those vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced gross and histopathological lesions consistent with viral infection are the primary parameters indicative of influenza vaccine efficacy. Here, we demonstrated that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei remarkably limited the severity of the damage by inhibiting viral replication and the accumulation of inflammatory cells and virus antigen in the lung alveolar tissues, relative to the severity in the unimmunized mice and the mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5K) .
Our study further demonstrated, for the first time, that recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-sM2 induced long-lasting immunity and conferred protection against lethal infections by influenza, even at 6 months after the final vaccination (Fig. 6) , which is important for any successful vaccine. Similar results were observed in previous studies, in which M2 VLP conferred longterm immunity and cross protection and the antibodies in the sera and mucosal sites were long lived [53, 54] .
In conclusion, our findings revealed that the mucosal immunization of mice with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated sM2 can induce systemic and local, as well as cellmediated, immune responses against divergent influenza virus subtypes. Thus, the recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated consensus sM2 mucosal vaccine may be a promising vaccine candidate for influenza pandemic preparedness. | Why have M2-based vaccines been ineffective? | {
"answer_start": [
3384
],
"text": [
"low immunogenicity"
]
} | false |
5,187 | Mucosal Vaccination with Recombinant Lactobacillus casei-Displayed CTA1-Conjugated Consensus Matrix Protein-2 (sM2) Induces Broad Protection against Divergent Influenza Subtypes in BALB/c Mice
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979752/
SHA: efaa556b484fbcd9cc34832ffac53ef3e834e9c0
Authors: Chowdhury, Mohammed Y. E.; Li, Rui; Kim, Jae-Hoon; Park, Min-Eun; Kim, Tae-Hwan; Pathinayake, Prabuddha; Weeratunga, Prasanna; Song, Man Ki; Son, Hwa-Young; Hong, Seung-Pyo; Sung, Moon-Hee; Lee, Jong-Soo; Kim, Chul-Joong
Date: 2014-04-08
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094051
License: cc-by
Abstract: To develop a safe and effective mucosal vaccine against pathogenic influenza viruses, we constructed recombinant Lactobacillus casei strains that express conserved matrix protein 2 with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei) or without (pgsA-sM2/L. casei) cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) on the surface. The surface localization of the fusion protein was verified by cellular fractionation analyses, flow cytometry and immunofluorescence microscopy. Oral and nasal inoculations of recombinant L. casei into mice resulted in high levels of serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) and mucosal IgA. However, the conjugation of cholera toxin subunit A1 induced more potent mucosal, humoral and cell-mediated immune responses. In a challenge test with 10 MLD(50) of A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird /Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) viruses, the recombinant pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei provided better protection against lethal challenges than pgsA-sM2/L. casei, pgsA/L. casei and PBS in mice. These results indicate that mucosal immunization with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-conjugated sM2 protein on its surface is an effective means of eliciting protective immune responses against diverse influenza subtypes.
Text: Vaccination remains most economical and effective means against respiratory diseases caused by influenza viruses [1] . Based on the circulating viruses in the population, trivalent vaccine strains have been developed and are used for the influenza virus protection [2] . The most acceptable current available strategy is the intramuscular administration of inactivated vaccines produced by egg-based manufacturing systems which while effective, are hampered by limited capacity and flexibility [3] . However, vaccine strains must be frequently adapted to match the circulating viruses throughout the world [4] . In addition, the levels of antibody induced by the inactivated vaccine have been observed to decrease by 75% over an 8-month period [2, 5] . Therefore, alternative strategies for developing broadly cross-protective, safe and effective vaccines against influenza viral infections are of prominent importance.
Matrix protein 2 (M2) is highly conserved among influenza A virus strains, indicating that M2 is an attractive target for developing a universal vaccine [6] . In previous studies, various constructs of the M2 vaccine have been developed and tested, including recombinant Escherichia coli (E. coli) expressing M2 fusion protein, adenoviral vectors expressing the M2 protein, plasmid DNA encoding M2 [7] [8] [9] and peptides encoding M2e [11] , each of which was able to elicit protective immune responses in mice. However, the drawback of these M2-based vaccines is their low immunogenicity; additionally, most of them would require intramuscular injections. Therefore, many strategies have been applied focusing on increasing the immunogenicity of M2-based vaccines, for example, fusion of M2 with different carrier molecules like human papilloma virus L protein [12] , keyhole limpet hemocyanin [10] and flagellin [13] . Furthermore, vaccinations with different adjuvants and routes of administration have been applied to evaluate their protection against divergent strains of influenza viruses. Mice immunized mucosally with an M2 or virus like particles (VLPs) adjuvanted with cholera toxin (CT) demonstrated better protection compared to mice subjected to parenteral immunization [14, 15] . However, due to the adverse effects of CT in humans, investigators have attempted to identify nontoxic subunits with adjuvanticity by removing either subunit A or subunit B [16] . E. coli expressing cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) fused with the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus showed the adjuvant effects without any reactogenicity of the A1 subunit in the mucosal vaccine [6] . Although, chemical or genetic conjugation of M2 may not present M2 in its native tetrameric form, extracellularly accessible antigens expressed on the surfaces of bacteria are better recognized by the immune system than those that are intracellular [17] . Thus, choice of delivery vehicle is also an important concern for potential mucosal vaccines.
Recently, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) presenting influenza virus antigens have been studied [3, 18, 19] . For mucosal immunization, LAB is a more attractive delivery system than other live vaccine vectors, such as Shigella, Salmonella, and Listeria [20, 21] . It is considered safe and exhibits an adjuvant-like effect on mucosal and systemic immunity [18, 22, 23] . Anchoring of the target protein to the cell surfaces of LAB is primarily intended to use in mucosal vaccines. The transmembrane protein pgsA is one of the poly-cglutamate synthetase complexes of Bacillus subtilis [17, 24, 25] , which is a well-studied anchor protein is able to fuse the target protein to its C terminus and stabilize the complex by anchoring it in the cell membrane. Since sM2 is a highly conserved and promising target for a universal vaccine and CTA1 is strong mucosal adjuvant, in this study, we developed constructs using a consensus sM2 gene reconstituted from the analysis of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2 influenza viruses (no trans-membrane domain) with or without the fusion of CTA1. To achieve this, we used a novel expression vector that can express a pgsA gene product as an anchoring matrix. Our target antigens, sM2 and CTA1, were displayed on the surface of Lactobacillus casei, and the oral or intranasal administration of recombinant L. casei induced systemic and mucosal immune responses that have the potential to protect against the lethal challenges of divergent influenza subtypes.
A total of 672 female BALB/c mice (5 weeks old) were purchased from Samtako (Seoul, Korea) and housed in ventilated cages. The mice were managed with pelleted feed and tap water ad libitum, maintained in a specific-pathogen-free environment and all efforts were made to minimize suffering following approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of of Bioleaders Corporation, Daejeon, South Korea, protocol number: BSL-ABLS-13-002. Immunizations of animal were conducted in biosafety level (BSL)-2 laboratory facilities. Mice were divided into 6 experimental sets, each consisting of 2 subsets: 1 for oral and 1 for intranasal administration which contained 4 groups each. Out of 6, 4 sets had 14 mice per group. One sets had 17 (3 mice for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry), and the last contained 11 mice per group (3 mice for CTL response).
Concentrations of recombinant L. casei were determined by colony forming units (CFU). In each subset, 2 groups received 10 10 CFU of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, and the remaining two groups received the same concentration of pKV-pgsA/L. casei or PBS in 100 ml orally via intragastric lavage at days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21 to 23. Similarly, 10 9 CFU of recombinant cells were administered in 20 ml suspensions into the nostrils of lightly anesthetized mice on days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21. Blood samples were collected from the retro-orbital plexus at days 21, 14 and 28; sera were separated by centrifugation for 5 minutes at 12,0006g and stored at 220uC until analysis. At day 28, 3 mice in each group were randomly sacrificed to collect IgA sample from lungs and intestine and stored at 270uC until analysis. Spleens were collected aseptically at day 28 for the analysis of the CTL response randomly from 3 mice of one set. The rest of the mice from the same set were maintained for 6 months from the date of the last boosting to measure the long-lasting immune responses and protection efficacy.
The avian influenza viruses A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/ Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) used in this study were kindly provided by Dr. Young-Ki Choi (College of Medicine and Medical Research Institute, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea). All viruses were propagated in the allantoic fluid of 10-day-old chicken embryos, and 50% mouse lethal doses (MLD 50 ) were determined in 8-week-old naive BALB/ c mice. Ether narcosis-anesthetized mice were intranasally infected with 10 times the MLD 50 of challenge viruses in 20 ml of PBS. Six mice in each group were sacrificed on 3 and 5 dpi to check virus titer in lungs and other 5 mice remained in each group have been used for survival. Mice were monitored every alternate day at fixed time point for measuring the weight loss and survival. Mice were euthanized if moribund, i.e. weight loss, ruffled fur, shivering, tachypnea, respiratory distress, hypothermia and poorly responsive to external stimuli, remaining were considered as survival number. After final monitoring, all the survived mice were humanely euthanized using CO 2 inhalation for 5 minutes.
At 180 days after the final vaccination, mice from one set were challenged with H5N2 for measuring the long lasting immune responses. All challenge tests were conducted inside an approved BSL-3+ facility under appropriate conditions. Bacterial Strains and Cloning for the Construction of Recombinant Plasmid PgsA-sM2/L. casei and PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei In this study, E. coli JM83 was used for cloning and L. casei L525 was used for surface expression of the target protein. These bacteria were grown in LB and MRS media, respectively. The plasmid pKV-Pald-PgsA, harboring the pgsA genes of Bacillus subtilis, was used to construct the surface display plasmid, which was a kind gift from the Bioleaders Corporation (Daejeon, South Korea). A gene encoding the consensus sequence of M2 spanning the residues of the extracellular and cytoplasmic domains without the transmembrane domain of influenza virus was generated. The consensus sequences were created based on the most common amino acids in each position of the alignment of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2; then, they were synthesized and used as templates for the construction of the plasmids pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei by cloning, as described previously [26, 27] . The sM2 gene was modified by adding a Kpn I site at the 59 terminal and Sal I at the 39 terminal for cloning. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed to amplify the gene using the primer pair 59-GGGGTACCTCATTATTAACA-39, and 59-ACGTCGACT-CATTATTCAAGTTCAATAATG AC-39. Similarly, a BamH I site at the 59 terminal and a Kpn I site at the 39 terminal end were added to the CTA1 gene using primers 59-CGGGATCCAAT-GATGATAAGTTATAT-39 and 59-GGGT ACCCGAT-GATCTTGGAGC ATT-39. The modified genes were ligated into the T Easy Vector (Invitrogen, Seoul, Korea). Genes were then digested with Kpn I-Sal I for sM2 and BamH I-Kpn I for CTA1. The digested sM2 was ligated to the plasmid vector pKV-pgsA for the construction of pKV-pgsA-sM2. Similarly, CTA1 was ligated for the construction of pKV-pgsA-CTA1-sM2. The ligated products were transformed into E. coli JM83 competent cells, as previously described, using an electroporation method [17] . The profiles of the recombinant plasmids were confirmed by restriction endonuclease digestion and DNA sequencing (Solgent, Seoul, Korea). After confirmation, the plasmids were transformed into L. casei L525 by electroporation and named pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei.
The recombinant L. casei containing pgsA, pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 genes were grown at 30uC for 48 hours. Cells were harvested by centrifugation at 6,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, followed by washing two times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Bacterial lyses were performed by sonication and centrifuged at 12,0006g for 20 minutes at 4uC. Cell wall and cytoplasmic fractions were separated by centrifugation at 25,0006g at 4uC for 2 hours. Pellets (cell wall) were resuspended in 100 ml of 1% sarcosol containing 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) as a protease inhibitor. Fractions were analyzed by western blotting, as described previously. For the immune detection of fusion proteins, the membranes were probed with rabbit anti-cholera toxin (1:2000, Abcam, UK), rabbit anti-pgsA (1:1000) and rabbit anti-M2 (1:1000) antibodies. The rabbit anti-pgsA and rabbit anti-M2 antibodies used in this experiment were generated by the i.m. inoculation of KLH-conjugated pgsA or M2 peptide in rabbit, respectively, two times at 2 weeks-interval. The membranes were reacted with a 1:10,000 dilution of anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (IgG HRP). Finally, the target proteins were detected using the WEST-ZOL plus Western Blot Detection System (iNtRON Biotechnology, Gyeonggi-do, Korea) and visualized by enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) [17, 26, 28] .
To investigate the expression of sM2 or CTA1-sM2 on the surface of L. casei, recombinant L. casei were grown in 30uC for 48 hours in the MRS broth. Bacteria were harvested by centrifugation at 5,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, washed three times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline containing 0.01% Tween-20 (PBST) and probed with polyclonal rabbit anti-M2 or rabbit anti-CT antibody overnight. Following another washing, the cells were treated with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)conjugated anti-rabbit IgG antibodies (Burlingame, CA, USA) for 2 hours. Finally, 10,000 cells were analyzed by flow cytometry (Becton Dickinson, Oxnard, CA, USA). For the immunofluorescence, cells were prepared under the same condition described for the flow cytometry. The pgsA/L. casei was used as a negative control and Immunofluoresence analysis was examined using a Carl Zeiss Axioskop 2 fluorescence microscope.
ELISA Antibody titers were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using serum or mucosal samples from vaccinated mice. First, 96-well immunosorbent plates (Nunc) were incubated with 300 ng/well purified sM2 or CTA1 proteins at 4uC overnight. The recombinant sM2 and CTA1 proteins used in this study were purified from E. coli. Next, the wells were blocked with 10% skim milk for 2 hours in RT, washed five times with PBST, treated with diluted serum samples (1:200) in triplicate for detecting IgG and undiluted tissue homogenized supernatant for detecting local IgA and incubated for 2 hours at 37uC. After washing three times, goat anti-mouse IgG HRP (1:1000, sigma) or anti-mouse IgA was added to each well and incubated for an additional 2 hours at 37uC. Following another round of washing, the plates were reacted with the substrate solution containing tetramethylbenzidine and H 2 O 2 and allowed to precede the reaction for 10 minutes. After adding the stop solution 2N-H 2 SO 4 , the optical density (OD) was measured at 450 nm using an ELISA autoreader (Molecular devices).
The development and counting of cytokines were performed by ELISPOTs, as described previously [31, 32] . Briefly, the day before the isolation of splenocytes, ELISPOT 96-well plates were coated with monoclonal anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 capture antibodies (5 mg/ml) in PBS and incubated at 4uC overnight. The plates were washed with PBS, and 200 ml/well of blocking solution containing complete RPMI 1640 medium and 10% fetal bovine serum, was added (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and incubated for 2 hours in RT. Spleens from the vaccinated mice were isolated aseptically and added at 5610 4 cells/well in media containing sM2 protein, M2 peptide (SLLTEVETPTRNGWECKCSD) (1 mg/well), only medium (negative control), or 5 mg/ml phytohemagglutinin (positive control, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). After adding cells and stimulators, the plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37uC with 5% CO 2 . The plates were sequentially treated with biotinylated anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 antibodies, streptavidinhorseradish peroxidase, and substrate solution. Finally, the spots were counted using an ImmunoScan Entry analyzer (Cellular Technology, Shaker Heights, USA).
The lungs were collected aseptically, and virus titers were determined by 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID 50 ), as described previously [33] . Briefly, lung tissues were homogenized in 500 ml of PBS containing antibiotics (penicillin, and streptomycin) and antimycotics (Fungizone) compounds (Gibco, Grand Island, NY, USA). Mechanically homogenized lung samples were centrifuged (15 minutes, 12,0006g and 4uC) to remove the cellular debris before their storage at 280uC. MDCK cells were inoculated with a 10-fold serially diluted sample and incubated at 37uC in a humid atmosphere of 5% CO 2 for an hour. After absorption, the media was removed, and overlay medium containing L-1-tosylamido-2-phenylethyl chloromethyl ketone (TPCK) trypsin (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rockford, USA) was added to the infected cells and incubated for 72 hours. Viral cytopathic effects were observed daily, and the titers were determined by the HA test. The viral titer of each sample was expressed as 50% tissue infected doses using the Reed-Muench method [34] .
For histopathology, lung tissues were collected at 5 dpi from ether narcosis-anesthetized mice. Tissues were immediately fixed in 10% formalin containing neutral buffer, embedded in paraffin wax, sectioned at 4-6 mm thickness using a microtome machine, mounted onto slides, and stained with eosin stain. Histopathological changes were examined by light microscopy, as previously described [29, 30, 35] . Furthermore, slides were stained using an immunoperoxidase method with an antibody (rabbit anti-M2, 1:500) directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus. A Goat-anti-rabbit IgG HRP (1:2000, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) was used as the secondary antibody for the detection of virus infected cells in respective tissues [57] .
Data are presented as the means 6 standard deviations (S.D.) and are representative of at least three independent experiments. Differences between groups were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), and means were compared by Student's t-test. P-values less than 0.05 were regarded as significant. Results for percent initial body weight were also compared by using Student's t test.
Comparison of survival was done by log-rank test using GraphPad Prism 6 version.
The pgsA-expressing vector was used to construct plasmids containing the highly conserved consensus sM2 gene, with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2) or without (pgsA-sM2) the cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1, Fig. 1A ). Plasmids were transformed into L. casei cells. The expression levels of pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were monitored by immunoblotting using anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies (data not shown).
To determine the cellular localization of the sM2 and CTA1 proteins expressed on the surface of L. casei via the cell wall anchor protein pgsA, membrane and cytoplasmic fractions were subjected to western blot analysis. As expected, both pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins were detected by anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies in the membrane, not in cytoplasmic fractions (Fig. 1B, lane 2, 3 and 4) . Immunoreactions were performed with anti-pgsA, and bands representing the size of the fused proteins pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were detected, while during the reactions with anti-M2 or anti-CT antibodies, no other bands were detected (Fig. 1B, lane 3 and 4) . This finding may have resulted from the degradation that occurs during the membrane fractionation procedure.
Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and immunofluorescence labeling of the cells were used to verify the localization of the fusion pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 protein on the surface of L. casei. Flow cytometric analysis using rabbit anti-M2 and anti-CT antibodies revealed increase level of fluorescence intensity of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells, compared to that of control L. casei cells (Fig. 1C ). Immunofluorescence microscopy also showed recombinant bacteria harboring pgsA-sM2 or pgsA-CTA1-sM2 that immunostained positive for sM2 and CTA1, but this was not found in control cells. These results demonstrated that recombinant L. casei could efficiently display the sM2 and CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins on the surface, using pgsA as a membrane anchor protein.
Immune Responses Induced by Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface Displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2
Preliminary experiment was conducted to determine the doses and schedule of pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei vaccine candidate on influenza virus protection (data not shown). To characterize the immunogenicity of the L. casei surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1conjugated sM2, BALB/c mice were immunized nasally (10 9 cells/20 ml dose) or orally (10 10 cells/100 ml dose) with recombinant live pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei bacteria. As a negative control, mice were immunized with L. casei harboring the parental plasmid pKV-pgsA (pgsA/L. casei) and PBS. Serum samples were collected at 0, 14 and 28 days and analyzed by ELISA, using sM2 and CTA1 proteins (purified from E. coli) as a coating antigen. After the first series of immunization, comparatively low levels of serum IgG were detected both in the i.n. and orally immunized group. However, high antibody levels were detected shortly after the second series of immunization, and the CTA1-conjugated sM2 group induced serum IgG at significant level, compared to sM2-only group and negative controls ( Fig. 2A and B) . Although the conjugation of CTA1 with sM2 was expected to have an adjuvant function only, a significant level of anti-CTA1 antibodies was detected in both the nasal and oral vaccinations ( Fig. 2A and B right panel) . In comparison with the oral group, the nasally immunized group showed higher levels of serum IgG specific to both sM2 and CTA1.
To assess the mucosal immune responses, the local IgA levels were determined by ELISA. Lung and intestinal tissues were collected at day 28 of immunization and examined using sM2 protein as a coating antigen. In both routes of vaccination, pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced significantly increased levels of sM2specific mucosal IgA compared to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups. However, as expected, higher levels of antibody titers were detected at the site of inoculation than at the remote site. A similar pattern of antibody responses was observed for both routes of immunization, in which the pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei groups dominated ( Fig. 2C and D) . These data demonstrated that cholera toxin subunit A1-conjugated sM2 resulted in significant enhancements to the sM2-specific IgG and mucosal IgA levels compared with sM2 alone or with controls immunized with pgsA/ L. casei or PBS.
Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2 Stimulated M2-specific Cellular Immune Response
To determine whether mucosal vaccination with L. casei surfacedisplayed sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 could induce cellular immunity, IFN-c and IL-4 ELISPOT were performed. Splenocytes from vaccinated mice were stimulated with 10 mg/ml of recombinant sM2 protein or M2 peptide, and the cytokine ELISPOTs were developed. The spots were counted to measure the differences in the CTL responses between the groups. Cells from the mice immunized i.n. with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed significant levels of IFN-c in response to stimulation with sM2 protein and M2 peptide (Fig. 3A) . Similarly, we observed that i.n. administered groups both for pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed detectable levels of IL-4 secreting splenocytes following stimulation with either sM2 protein or M2 peptide (Fig. 3B) . IFN-c and IL-4 secreting cells were also observed in mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 3C ) although their levels were lower than i.n. group and were not significant. Control group immunized with pgsA/L. casei showed background spot level for both in intranasal and oral groups. These findings indicate that highly conserved sM2 can induce M2-specific IFN-c and IL-4 secreting T cell responses, while mucosal delivery through L. casei and CTA1 conjugation with sM2 enhanced the cell mediated immunity, which may contribute to broadening the protective immunity.
M2 is known as a potential target for the development of broad spectrum influenza vaccine with minimum variability [36, 37] . To confirm the variability of sM2 sequences of the challenged viruses used in this study, we compared the sM2 of influenza subtypes available from U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) with our consensus sM2 sequence particularly the whole conserved ecto and some portion of cytoplasmic domain (CD) although entire CD was included in vaccine construct (Table 1) . We found that, viruses used in this study contain 0-8 mismatched amino acids among the amino acids of sM2 compared in this study. To evaluate the efficacy of the sM2 vaccine, week after the final immunization, mice were challenged i.n. with the 10 MLD 50 of A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2) influenza virus subtypes that was homologous to the consensus sM2 sequence. Mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/ L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed 40 and 60% protection respectively. Similarly, i.n. immunization groups conferred 40 and 80%, against the lethal infection with highly virulent H5N2 virus. In contrast, none of the unimmunized mice survived after lethal infection ( Fig. 4A and B, right panel) . Morbidity was increased in the mice immunized via oral route, whereas mice that received i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost ,20% of their initial body weight and started recovering by 9 day post infection (dpi) and had completely recovered by day 13 (Fig. 4A and B, left panel) .
We next evaluated the protection efficiency of sM2 vaccine candidate against A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), which contains 8 mismatched amino acids relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Sets of vaccinated mice were challenged with 10 MLD 50 of the H1N1 virus. As shown in figure 4C and D, mice immunized by the The mice were grouped as mentioned in materials and methods and received oral or nasal administrations, according to the schedule. Arrows indicated the immunization routes and periods of pgsA/L. casei, pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells. Sera were collected at days 0, 14 and 28; samples from the lungs and intestines were collected at day 28 after immunization. A week after the final immunization, spleens were excised from 3 mice in each group, with one set for CTL analysis. Two or 24 weeks after the last immunization, all mice were challenged with a lethal dose of influenza subtypes through intranasal route and monitored for 13 days. On days 3 and 5 post infection, the lungs were excised from 3 mice in each group to determine the virus titer. On 5 dpi, the mice from one set were sacrificed for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g001 CTA1-sM2 Induces Protective Immunity to Pathogenic Influenza A Viruses PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org i.n route exhibited a higher level of protection than the orally immunized groups, and mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei showed a significantly higher level of protection compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, right panel) . Unimmunized mice lost up to 40% of their body weight and died by 9 dpi. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost approximately 10% of their body weight, whereas mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei lost .20% of their initial body weight by 9 dpi and recovered more slowly than mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, left panel) .
Another set of vaccinated mice were infected with A/Chicken/ Korea/116/2004(H9N2) to check the range of protection ability of sM2 vaccine induced immune responses. The sM2 sequence of H9N2 contains 2 mismatched relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. The mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight losses and gradual recovery compared to those of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and the unimmunized mice for both the i.n and oral routes (Fig. 4E and F left panel) . None of the unimmunized mice survived, whereas 100% and 80% of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei via the i.n. and oral routes survived, respectively. The survival rates of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei were 80% and 60% for the i.n. and oral routes, respectively ( Fig. 4E and F, right panel) .
The breadth of protection of the sM2 vaccine against divergent influenza subtypes was also evaluated. Set of immunized mice were challenged with high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A/ EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), which contains 2 amino acid mismatches relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Mice immunized via the i.n. and oral routes with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed higher protection efficacies, 80% and 60%, respectively, compared with mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei, for which the rates were 60% and 20%, respectively ( Fig. 4G and H, right panel) . Regarding morbidity, mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed lower morbidity than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4G and H, left panel) . One more set of vaccinated mice were challenged with the A/Aquatic bird/ Korea/W44/2005 (H7N3) virus, which contains 1 mismatch relative to the consensus sM2 sequence, and the body weight and survival were observed for 13 dpi. As shown in figure 4I and J, unimmunized mice lost as much as 30% of their body weight than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4I and J, left panel) . Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei through the i.n route showed significantly higher level of protection against the H7N3 influenza virus than the other groups ( Fig. 4I and J, right panel) . Taken together, the results indicate that i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced immune responses that conferred significant levels of protection against divergent subtypes of influenza viruses containing mismatched amino acids ranging from 0 to 8 of the consensus sM2, regardless of whether it was complete or partial.
Virus titers in the lungs of challenged mice were measured to estimate replication at 3 and 5 dpi. Mice were immunized via the i.n and oral routes with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei and challenged with the H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 or H7N3 influenza subtypes. On 3 and 5 dpi, 3 mice were sacrificed randomly from each group, and their lung virus titers were measured using the TCID 50 method. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei had lower titers at 3 dpi and had significantly reduced viral replication at 5 dpi compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or the control groups at the same time ( Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced viral titers in the lungs were observed in groups of mice immunized via the i.n route relative to the mice immunized via the oral route, particularly at day 3 post infections (Fig. 5) . These reduced titers may be due to routes of vaccination and challenge being the same, and the titers correlated with the survival results for lethal infections with H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 and H7N3. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the consensus sM2 protein fused with CTA1 afforded better protection than sM2, and the i.n route was more potent than the oral route of immunization with regard to protection against a lethal challenge of divergent influenza subtypes.
Histopathology and immunohistochemistry were performed to corroborate the lung virus titer findings. At 5 dpi, lungs were randomly collected from each group of one set, fixed and stained with eosin before being examined under a light microscope. As shown in figure 5K , clear signs of profound pulmonary inflammation were observed in the lungs of mice treated with PBS or pgsA/L. casei for both the oral and i.n routes of administration, whereas the lungs of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed no remarkable pulmonary inflammation compare to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei-treated mice (Fig. 5K, middle and left panel) . For immunohistochemistry, immunoperoxidase method with an antibody directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus was used for the detection of virus infected cells in the respective tissues. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. As shown in figure 5K, at 5 days p.i., numerous virusinfected cells were detected in control or pgsA-sM2/L. casei vaccinated mice, whereas highly reduced number of antigen positive cells were found in the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, both in i.n. and orally immunized group (Fig. 5K right panel) . These results indicate that mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei developed immune responses that are strong enough to inhibit virus replication, which promotes the survival of mice after a lethal infection by influenza A.
The PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei Vaccination Induced Longlasting Cross Protection
The duration of protection is an important criterion for a potential vaccine. Thus, the longevity of the immunity induced by sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 were investigated by detecting serum IgG and mucosal IgA by ELISA. Significantly increase levels of sM2-specific serum IgG as well as lung and intestinal IgA were observed 180 days after vaccination ( Fig. 6A and C) compare to PBS and pgsA/L. casei groups. Mice were challenged with A/ Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), and the body weight changes and survival were monitored until 13 dpi. The unimmunized mice showed .30% body weight loss (Fig. 6B and D left panel) and died by day 9 post infection in both the oral and i.n. groups. In contrast, the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight loss, which was recovered by 13 dpi; 80% survived in the i.n. immunized group (Fig. 6B right panel) , and 60% survived in the orally immunized group (Fig. 6D right panel) . This result indicates that the CTA1conjugated sM2 mucosal vaccine conferred protection against a lethal infection 6 months after the final immunization.
The mucosal immune system is the first immunological barrier against the pathogens that invade the body via the mucosal surface. Thus, the induction of mucosal immunity is necessary to ensure protection against multiple subtypes of influenza A virus. A respiratory virus, influenza A is responsible for annual seasonal epidemics worldwide and, occasionally, pandemics, which are caused by emerging novel subtypes/strains derived through reassortment with avian or porcine viruses. Current influenza vaccines provide strain-specific protection only. Thus, it is crucial to establish a broadly cross-protective influenza vaccine. Antigens that are well conserved among influenza A viruses are considered promising targets for the induction of cross-protection against these different subtypes. However, the goal should be the development of a first line of defense by effectively eliminating pathogens at the mucosal surface. Influenza matrix protein-2 (M2) is relatively well conserved among the influenza subtypes and can be considered a promising influenza vaccine antigen [30] . It consists of the following three structural domains: a 24-amino-acid extracellular domain, a 19-amino-acid transmembrane domain, and a 54-amino-acid cytoplasmic tail domain [39, 40] . The extracellular and cytoplasmic domains, which are well conserved among influenza viruses and play an important role in viral assembly and morphogenesis, were used in this study. Here, we developed sM2 consensus derived from the analysis of sequences of H5N1, H1N1 and H9N2 subtypes in the database. Considering the previous findings that extracellular domain particularly (aa, 1-13) is highly conserved among the influenza virus subtypes and recognized as epitope for the induction of monoclonal antibodies, which could protect influenza virus infection [56] , sM2 backbone sequence from the H5N1 virus were used. For the possible homology among other subtypes we changed at the position of 14 (E-G) and 18 (R-K) and kept unchanged the conserved epitope (aa, 1-13). As shown in sequence alignment, sM2 of consensus sequence has 0-8 mismatches among the subtypes used in this study (Table 1) .
Moreover, the incorporation of an adjuvant is considered essential to boost the interaction of the vaccine with the mucosal immune system [41] . Various adjuvants, such as liposomes, nanoparticles, and immunostimulating complexes (ISCOMs), have been studied and were found to improve the immune response [42] , but their efficacies were not optimal. Despite its potential as a mucosal adjuvant [43] , the use of cholera toxin (CT) in vaccines is limited by its innate toxicity. Thus, the toxicity of CT would have to be separated from its adjuvanticity before it could be used as a vaccine adjuvant. Studies have shown that constructs consisting of M2e fused with cholera toxin subunit A1 along with a strong ADPribosylating agent and a dimer of the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus protein A vaccine elicited complete protection and reduced morbidity [6, 44] . CTA1 retains the adjuvant function of CT without its toxic side effects, such as reactogenicity at the site of its administration and binding to or accumulation in the nervous tissues [45] . Based on previous findings, it has been hypothesized that the consensus sM2 fragment, when fused with the potent mucosal adjuvant CTA1, may induce broad protective immunity against divergent subtypes of influenza virus. In this study, we used the whole 22-kDa CTA1 protein (an ADP ribosyltransferase), which consists of three distinct subdomains: CTA11 (residues 1 to 132), CTA12 (residues 133 to 161), and CTA13 (residues 162 to 192). It has been reported that CTA1 lacking CTB has strong adjuvant activities without any toxicity. CTA1 enhances the IgA and IgG antibody responses, as well as CTL activity [47] .
For the development of a universal mucosal influenza vaccine with a conserved sM2 peptide and potent adjuvant CTA1, recombinant L. casei displaying sM2 fused with or without CTA1
The lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed clear alveoli without inflammatory cell infiltration, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control mice, both of which revealed features of severe pneumonitis (middle and left panel). Reduced number of viral antigen were detected in lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control revealed features of severe pneumonitis with increase virus antigen (right panel). Micrographs are representative for each treatment group at a magnification of 200X. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. In lung titers, bars denote mean 6 S.D. The asterisk indicates a significant difference between pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei and other groups (*P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g005 were constructed for mucosal delivery by the widely used live vaccine vehicle LAB [38] . The pgsA gene used in this study is an anchor for display on the surface of LAB which is derived from the pgsBCA enzyme complex of Bacillus subtilis and consists of transmembrane domain near its N-terminus with the domain located on the outside of the cell membrane. Thus, pgsA is able to cross the cell wall and display the heterologous protein fused to its C-terminus [17] .
The developed vaccines were tested through two major routes. We found that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei was able to induce a significantly higher level of sM2-specific serum IgG ( Fig. 2A and B ) and mucosal IgA (Fig. 2C and D) compared to pgsA-sM2/L. casei, and conferring protection against divergent influenza subtypes of both phylogenetic group 1 (H1, H5, H9) and group 2 (H7) [46] (Fig. 4) . This study also revealed that i.n. administration was superior to the oral route of vaccination, which is consistent with other observations [48] . There may be two possible reasons to explain this phenomenon. First, the challenge route is the same as that of the vaccination; specific mucosal IgA can prevent viral colonization in the respiratory tract. Second, the volume of the inocula was 5 times lower than that for oral inoculation, which may have allowed the concentrated form of the antigen to be presented to immune cells. Because greater levels of serum IgG and mucosal IgA were detected in intranasally immunized mice than in those immunized orally (Fig. 2) , an alternative explanation could be that the antigens are processed and/or presented differently to immune cells in the two mucosal compartments. Importantly, our study demonstrated for the first time that mucosal immunization with the LAB surface-displayed CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate induced broad protection against challenge with divergent influenza subtypes.
However, the mechanism by which Abs against sM2 mediated this broad protection is not fully understood. Previous studies have demonstrated that Abs to the N-terminus of M2e, particularly positions 1-10, inhibited the replication of the influenza A virus [49, 50] . Other studies revealed that anti-M2e IgG-mediated cellular cytotoxicity or phagocytosis can induce the removal of infected cells before progeny virus budding and spread [54, 55] which is supporting our findings of lung virus titer and immunohistochemistry data detected at 5 dpi in our challenge experiments. Therefore, in this study, combination of those responses and Abs to the N-terminus of the sM2 sequence which is conserved among the challenge viruses (Table 1 ) may protect the divergent influenza subtypes after mucosal immunization with the recombinant LAB CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate. Moreover, the cellular immune response plays an important role in controlling viral replication. We examined the Th1-type (IFN-c) and Th2-type (IL-4) cytokine responses by the ELISPOT assay. Significantly higher levels of IFN-c were detected in response to stimulation with both the sM2 protein and M2 peptide in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei compared to the levels in mice in the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups ( Fig. 3A and C) . Similarly, substantially high levels of IL-4 were observed in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei upon stimulation with the sM2 protein and M2 peptide ( Fig. 3B and D) . These results further support the findings that the antibodies and cell-mediated cytotoxicity were specific to the M2 antigen and that their anti-viral activities were induced by monomeric M2, three copies of M2 fused with ASP-1 [34, 51, 52] . Together, these results indicate that sM2 adjuvanted with fused CTA1 induced immune responses in mice, which protected them from divergent influenza subtypes. In this regard, our results have significance for the use of CTA1, which has adjuvant function, in vaccine candidates.
As clinical protection is not the only parameter by which vaccine performance is assessed, we evaluated the immunogenicity of the recombinant LAB vaccine on the basis of other parameters, such as the reduction of pathological lesions and virus shedding. In this study, low titers of the challenge virus were titrated from the lungs after vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, whereas challenge virus could be detected at higher titers in the mock mice and those vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced gross and histopathological lesions consistent with viral infection are the primary parameters indicative of influenza vaccine efficacy. Here, we demonstrated that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei remarkably limited the severity of the damage by inhibiting viral replication and the accumulation of inflammatory cells and virus antigen in the lung alveolar tissues, relative to the severity in the unimmunized mice and the mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5K) .
Our study further demonstrated, for the first time, that recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-sM2 induced long-lasting immunity and conferred protection against lethal infections by influenza, even at 6 months after the final vaccination (Fig. 6) , which is important for any successful vaccine. Similar results were observed in previous studies, in which M2 VLP conferred longterm immunity and cross protection and the antibodies in the sera and mucosal sites were long lived [53, 54] .
In conclusion, our findings revealed that the mucosal immunization of mice with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated sM2 can induce systemic and local, as well as cellmediated, immune responses against divergent influenza virus subtypes. Thus, the recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated consensus sM2 mucosal vaccine may be a promising vaccine candidate for influenza pandemic preparedness. | Why are lactic acid bacteria considered an attractive delivery system for a live influenza vaccine? | {
"answer_start": [
5108
],
"text": [
"considered safe and exhibits an adjuvant-like effect on mucosal and systemic immunity"
]
} | false |
5,188 | Mucosal Vaccination with Recombinant Lactobacillus casei-Displayed CTA1-Conjugated Consensus Matrix Protein-2 (sM2) Induces Broad Protection against Divergent Influenza Subtypes in BALB/c Mice
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979752/
SHA: efaa556b484fbcd9cc34832ffac53ef3e834e9c0
Authors: Chowdhury, Mohammed Y. E.; Li, Rui; Kim, Jae-Hoon; Park, Min-Eun; Kim, Tae-Hwan; Pathinayake, Prabuddha; Weeratunga, Prasanna; Song, Man Ki; Son, Hwa-Young; Hong, Seung-Pyo; Sung, Moon-Hee; Lee, Jong-Soo; Kim, Chul-Joong
Date: 2014-04-08
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094051
License: cc-by
Abstract: To develop a safe and effective mucosal vaccine against pathogenic influenza viruses, we constructed recombinant Lactobacillus casei strains that express conserved matrix protein 2 with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei) or without (pgsA-sM2/L. casei) cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) on the surface. The surface localization of the fusion protein was verified by cellular fractionation analyses, flow cytometry and immunofluorescence microscopy. Oral and nasal inoculations of recombinant L. casei into mice resulted in high levels of serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) and mucosal IgA. However, the conjugation of cholera toxin subunit A1 induced more potent mucosal, humoral and cell-mediated immune responses. In a challenge test with 10 MLD(50) of A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird /Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) viruses, the recombinant pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei provided better protection against lethal challenges than pgsA-sM2/L. casei, pgsA/L. casei and PBS in mice. These results indicate that mucosal immunization with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-conjugated sM2 protein on its surface is an effective means of eliciting protective immune responses against diverse influenza subtypes.
Text: Vaccination remains most economical and effective means against respiratory diseases caused by influenza viruses [1] . Based on the circulating viruses in the population, trivalent vaccine strains have been developed and are used for the influenza virus protection [2] . The most acceptable current available strategy is the intramuscular administration of inactivated vaccines produced by egg-based manufacturing systems which while effective, are hampered by limited capacity and flexibility [3] . However, vaccine strains must be frequently adapted to match the circulating viruses throughout the world [4] . In addition, the levels of antibody induced by the inactivated vaccine have been observed to decrease by 75% over an 8-month period [2, 5] . Therefore, alternative strategies for developing broadly cross-protective, safe and effective vaccines against influenza viral infections are of prominent importance.
Matrix protein 2 (M2) is highly conserved among influenza A virus strains, indicating that M2 is an attractive target for developing a universal vaccine [6] . In previous studies, various constructs of the M2 vaccine have been developed and tested, including recombinant Escherichia coli (E. coli) expressing M2 fusion protein, adenoviral vectors expressing the M2 protein, plasmid DNA encoding M2 [7] [8] [9] and peptides encoding M2e [11] , each of which was able to elicit protective immune responses in mice. However, the drawback of these M2-based vaccines is their low immunogenicity; additionally, most of them would require intramuscular injections. Therefore, many strategies have been applied focusing on increasing the immunogenicity of M2-based vaccines, for example, fusion of M2 with different carrier molecules like human papilloma virus L protein [12] , keyhole limpet hemocyanin [10] and flagellin [13] . Furthermore, vaccinations with different adjuvants and routes of administration have been applied to evaluate their protection against divergent strains of influenza viruses. Mice immunized mucosally with an M2 or virus like particles (VLPs) adjuvanted with cholera toxin (CT) demonstrated better protection compared to mice subjected to parenteral immunization [14, 15] . However, due to the adverse effects of CT in humans, investigators have attempted to identify nontoxic subunits with adjuvanticity by removing either subunit A or subunit B [16] . E. coli expressing cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) fused with the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus showed the adjuvant effects without any reactogenicity of the A1 subunit in the mucosal vaccine [6] . Although, chemical or genetic conjugation of M2 may not present M2 in its native tetrameric form, extracellularly accessible antigens expressed on the surfaces of bacteria are better recognized by the immune system than those that are intracellular [17] . Thus, choice of delivery vehicle is also an important concern for potential mucosal vaccines.
Recently, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) presenting influenza virus antigens have been studied [3, 18, 19] . For mucosal immunization, LAB is a more attractive delivery system than other live vaccine vectors, such as Shigella, Salmonella, and Listeria [20, 21] . It is considered safe and exhibits an adjuvant-like effect on mucosal and systemic immunity [18, 22, 23] . Anchoring of the target protein to the cell surfaces of LAB is primarily intended to use in mucosal vaccines. The transmembrane protein pgsA is one of the poly-cglutamate synthetase complexes of Bacillus subtilis [17, 24, 25] , which is a well-studied anchor protein is able to fuse the target protein to its C terminus and stabilize the complex by anchoring it in the cell membrane. Since sM2 is a highly conserved and promising target for a universal vaccine and CTA1 is strong mucosal adjuvant, in this study, we developed constructs using a consensus sM2 gene reconstituted from the analysis of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2 influenza viruses (no trans-membrane domain) with or without the fusion of CTA1. To achieve this, we used a novel expression vector that can express a pgsA gene product as an anchoring matrix. Our target antigens, sM2 and CTA1, were displayed on the surface of Lactobacillus casei, and the oral or intranasal administration of recombinant L. casei induced systemic and mucosal immune responses that have the potential to protect against the lethal challenges of divergent influenza subtypes.
A total of 672 female BALB/c mice (5 weeks old) were purchased from Samtako (Seoul, Korea) and housed in ventilated cages. The mice were managed with pelleted feed and tap water ad libitum, maintained in a specific-pathogen-free environment and all efforts were made to minimize suffering following approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of of Bioleaders Corporation, Daejeon, South Korea, protocol number: BSL-ABLS-13-002. Immunizations of animal were conducted in biosafety level (BSL)-2 laboratory facilities. Mice were divided into 6 experimental sets, each consisting of 2 subsets: 1 for oral and 1 for intranasal administration which contained 4 groups each. Out of 6, 4 sets had 14 mice per group. One sets had 17 (3 mice for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry), and the last contained 11 mice per group (3 mice for CTL response).
Concentrations of recombinant L. casei were determined by colony forming units (CFU). In each subset, 2 groups received 10 10 CFU of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, and the remaining two groups received the same concentration of pKV-pgsA/L. casei or PBS in 100 ml orally via intragastric lavage at days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21 to 23. Similarly, 10 9 CFU of recombinant cells were administered in 20 ml suspensions into the nostrils of lightly anesthetized mice on days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21. Blood samples were collected from the retro-orbital plexus at days 21, 14 and 28; sera were separated by centrifugation for 5 minutes at 12,0006g and stored at 220uC until analysis. At day 28, 3 mice in each group were randomly sacrificed to collect IgA sample from lungs and intestine and stored at 270uC until analysis. Spleens were collected aseptically at day 28 for the analysis of the CTL response randomly from 3 mice of one set. The rest of the mice from the same set were maintained for 6 months from the date of the last boosting to measure the long-lasting immune responses and protection efficacy.
The avian influenza viruses A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/ Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) used in this study were kindly provided by Dr. Young-Ki Choi (College of Medicine and Medical Research Institute, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea). All viruses were propagated in the allantoic fluid of 10-day-old chicken embryos, and 50% mouse lethal doses (MLD 50 ) were determined in 8-week-old naive BALB/ c mice. Ether narcosis-anesthetized mice were intranasally infected with 10 times the MLD 50 of challenge viruses in 20 ml of PBS. Six mice in each group were sacrificed on 3 and 5 dpi to check virus titer in lungs and other 5 mice remained in each group have been used for survival. Mice were monitored every alternate day at fixed time point for measuring the weight loss and survival. Mice were euthanized if moribund, i.e. weight loss, ruffled fur, shivering, tachypnea, respiratory distress, hypothermia and poorly responsive to external stimuli, remaining were considered as survival number. After final monitoring, all the survived mice were humanely euthanized using CO 2 inhalation for 5 minutes.
At 180 days after the final vaccination, mice from one set were challenged with H5N2 for measuring the long lasting immune responses. All challenge tests were conducted inside an approved BSL-3+ facility under appropriate conditions. Bacterial Strains and Cloning for the Construction of Recombinant Plasmid PgsA-sM2/L. casei and PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei In this study, E. coli JM83 was used for cloning and L. casei L525 was used for surface expression of the target protein. These bacteria were grown in LB and MRS media, respectively. The plasmid pKV-Pald-PgsA, harboring the pgsA genes of Bacillus subtilis, was used to construct the surface display plasmid, which was a kind gift from the Bioleaders Corporation (Daejeon, South Korea). A gene encoding the consensus sequence of M2 spanning the residues of the extracellular and cytoplasmic domains without the transmembrane domain of influenza virus was generated. The consensus sequences were created based on the most common amino acids in each position of the alignment of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2; then, they were synthesized and used as templates for the construction of the plasmids pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei by cloning, as described previously [26, 27] . The sM2 gene was modified by adding a Kpn I site at the 59 terminal and Sal I at the 39 terminal for cloning. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed to amplify the gene using the primer pair 59-GGGGTACCTCATTATTAACA-39, and 59-ACGTCGACT-CATTATTCAAGTTCAATAATG AC-39. Similarly, a BamH I site at the 59 terminal and a Kpn I site at the 39 terminal end were added to the CTA1 gene using primers 59-CGGGATCCAAT-GATGATAAGTTATAT-39 and 59-GGGT ACCCGAT-GATCTTGGAGC ATT-39. The modified genes were ligated into the T Easy Vector (Invitrogen, Seoul, Korea). Genes were then digested with Kpn I-Sal I for sM2 and BamH I-Kpn I for CTA1. The digested sM2 was ligated to the plasmid vector pKV-pgsA for the construction of pKV-pgsA-sM2. Similarly, CTA1 was ligated for the construction of pKV-pgsA-CTA1-sM2. The ligated products were transformed into E. coli JM83 competent cells, as previously described, using an electroporation method [17] . The profiles of the recombinant plasmids were confirmed by restriction endonuclease digestion and DNA sequencing (Solgent, Seoul, Korea). After confirmation, the plasmids were transformed into L. casei L525 by electroporation and named pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei.
The recombinant L. casei containing pgsA, pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 genes were grown at 30uC for 48 hours. Cells were harvested by centrifugation at 6,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, followed by washing two times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Bacterial lyses were performed by sonication and centrifuged at 12,0006g for 20 minutes at 4uC. Cell wall and cytoplasmic fractions were separated by centrifugation at 25,0006g at 4uC for 2 hours. Pellets (cell wall) were resuspended in 100 ml of 1% sarcosol containing 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) as a protease inhibitor. Fractions were analyzed by western blotting, as described previously. For the immune detection of fusion proteins, the membranes were probed with rabbit anti-cholera toxin (1:2000, Abcam, UK), rabbit anti-pgsA (1:1000) and rabbit anti-M2 (1:1000) antibodies. The rabbit anti-pgsA and rabbit anti-M2 antibodies used in this experiment were generated by the i.m. inoculation of KLH-conjugated pgsA or M2 peptide in rabbit, respectively, two times at 2 weeks-interval. The membranes were reacted with a 1:10,000 dilution of anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (IgG HRP). Finally, the target proteins were detected using the WEST-ZOL plus Western Blot Detection System (iNtRON Biotechnology, Gyeonggi-do, Korea) and visualized by enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) [17, 26, 28] .
To investigate the expression of sM2 or CTA1-sM2 on the surface of L. casei, recombinant L. casei were grown in 30uC for 48 hours in the MRS broth. Bacteria were harvested by centrifugation at 5,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, washed three times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline containing 0.01% Tween-20 (PBST) and probed with polyclonal rabbit anti-M2 or rabbit anti-CT antibody overnight. Following another washing, the cells were treated with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)conjugated anti-rabbit IgG antibodies (Burlingame, CA, USA) for 2 hours. Finally, 10,000 cells were analyzed by flow cytometry (Becton Dickinson, Oxnard, CA, USA). For the immunofluorescence, cells were prepared under the same condition described for the flow cytometry. The pgsA/L. casei was used as a negative control and Immunofluoresence analysis was examined using a Carl Zeiss Axioskop 2 fluorescence microscope.
ELISA Antibody titers were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using serum or mucosal samples from vaccinated mice. First, 96-well immunosorbent plates (Nunc) were incubated with 300 ng/well purified sM2 or CTA1 proteins at 4uC overnight. The recombinant sM2 and CTA1 proteins used in this study were purified from E. coli. Next, the wells were blocked with 10% skim milk for 2 hours in RT, washed five times with PBST, treated with diluted serum samples (1:200) in triplicate for detecting IgG and undiluted tissue homogenized supernatant for detecting local IgA and incubated for 2 hours at 37uC. After washing three times, goat anti-mouse IgG HRP (1:1000, sigma) or anti-mouse IgA was added to each well and incubated for an additional 2 hours at 37uC. Following another round of washing, the plates were reacted with the substrate solution containing tetramethylbenzidine and H 2 O 2 and allowed to precede the reaction for 10 minutes. After adding the stop solution 2N-H 2 SO 4 , the optical density (OD) was measured at 450 nm using an ELISA autoreader (Molecular devices).
The development and counting of cytokines were performed by ELISPOTs, as described previously [31, 32] . Briefly, the day before the isolation of splenocytes, ELISPOT 96-well plates were coated with monoclonal anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 capture antibodies (5 mg/ml) in PBS and incubated at 4uC overnight. The plates were washed with PBS, and 200 ml/well of blocking solution containing complete RPMI 1640 medium and 10% fetal bovine serum, was added (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and incubated for 2 hours in RT. Spleens from the vaccinated mice were isolated aseptically and added at 5610 4 cells/well in media containing sM2 protein, M2 peptide (SLLTEVETPTRNGWECKCSD) (1 mg/well), only medium (negative control), or 5 mg/ml phytohemagglutinin (positive control, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). After adding cells and stimulators, the plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37uC with 5% CO 2 . The plates were sequentially treated with biotinylated anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 antibodies, streptavidinhorseradish peroxidase, and substrate solution. Finally, the spots were counted using an ImmunoScan Entry analyzer (Cellular Technology, Shaker Heights, USA).
The lungs were collected aseptically, and virus titers were determined by 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID 50 ), as described previously [33] . Briefly, lung tissues were homogenized in 500 ml of PBS containing antibiotics (penicillin, and streptomycin) and antimycotics (Fungizone) compounds (Gibco, Grand Island, NY, USA). Mechanically homogenized lung samples were centrifuged (15 minutes, 12,0006g and 4uC) to remove the cellular debris before their storage at 280uC. MDCK cells were inoculated with a 10-fold serially diluted sample and incubated at 37uC in a humid atmosphere of 5% CO 2 for an hour. After absorption, the media was removed, and overlay medium containing L-1-tosylamido-2-phenylethyl chloromethyl ketone (TPCK) trypsin (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rockford, USA) was added to the infected cells and incubated for 72 hours. Viral cytopathic effects were observed daily, and the titers were determined by the HA test. The viral titer of each sample was expressed as 50% tissue infected doses using the Reed-Muench method [34] .
For histopathology, lung tissues were collected at 5 dpi from ether narcosis-anesthetized mice. Tissues were immediately fixed in 10% formalin containing neutral buffer, embedded in paraffin wax, sectioned at 4-6 mm thickness using a microtome machine, mounted onto slides, and stained with eosin stain. Histopathological changes were examined by light microscopy, as previously described [29, 30, 35] . Furthermore, slides were stained using an immunoperoxidase method with an antibody (rabbit anti-M2, 1:500) directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus. A Goat-anti-rabbit IgG HRP (1:2000, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) was used as the secondary antibody for the detection of virus infected cells in respective tissues [57] .
Data are presented as the means 6 standard deviations (S.D.) and are representative of at least three independent experiments. Differences between groups were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), and means were compared by Student's t-test. P-values less than 0.05 were regarded as significant. Results for percent initial body weight were also compared by using Student's t test.
Comparison of survival was done by log-rank test using GraphPad Prism 6 version.
The pgsA-expressing vector was used to construct plasmids containing the highly conserved consensus sM2 gene, with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2) or without (pgsA-sM2) the cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1, Fig. 1A ). Plasmids were transformed into L. casei cells. The expression levels of pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were monitored by immunoblotting using anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies (data not shown).
To determine the cellular localization of the sM2 and CTA1 proteins expressed on the surface of L. casei via the cell wall anchor protein pgsA, membrane and cytoplasmic fractions were subjected to western blot analysis. As expected, both pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins were detected by anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies in the membrane, not in cytoplasmic fractions (Fig. 1B, lane 2, 3 and 4) . Immunoreactions were performed with anti-pgsA, and bands representing the size of the fused proteins pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were detected, while during the reactions with anti-M2 or anti-CT antibodies, no other bands were detected (Fig. 1B, lane 3 and 4) . This finding may have resulted from the degradation that occurs during the membrane fractionation procedure.
Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and immunofluorescence labeling of the cells were used to verify the localization of the fusion pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 protein on the surface of L. casei. Flow cytometric analysis using rabbit anti-M2 and anti-CT antibodies revealed increase level of fluorescence intensity of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells, compared to that of control L. casei cells (Fig. 1C ). Immunofluorescence microscopy also showed recombinant bacteria harboring pgsA-sM2 or pgsA-CTA1-sM2 that immunostained positive for sM2 and CTA1, but this was not found in control cells. These results demonstrated that recombinant L. casei could efficiently display the sM2 and CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins on the surface, using pgsA as a membrane anchor protein.
Immune Responses Induced by Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface Displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2
Preliminary experiment was conducted to determine the doses and schedule of pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei vaccine candidate on influenza virus protection (data not shown). To characterize the immunogenicity of the L. casei surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1conjugated sM2, BALB/c mice were immunized nasally (10 9 cells/20 ml dose) or orally (10 10 cells/100 ml dose) with recombinant live pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei bacteria. As a negative control, mice were immunized with L. casei harboring the parental plasmid pKV-pgsA (pgsA/L. casei) and PBS. Serum samples were collected at 0, 14 and 28 days and analyzed by ELISA, using sM2 and CTA1 proteins (purified from E. coli) as a coating antigen. After the first series of immunization, comparatively low levels of serum IgG were detected both in the i.n. and orally immunized group. However, high antibody levels were detected shortly after the second series of immunization, and the CTA1-conjugated sM2 group induced serum IgG at significant level, compared to sM2-only group and negative controls ( Fig. 2A and B) . Although the conjugation of CTA1 with sM2 was expected to have an adjuvant function only, a significant level of anti-CTA1 antibodies was detected in both the nasal and oral vaccinations ( Fig. 2A and B right panel) . In comparison with the oral group, the nasally immunized group showed higher levels of serum IgG specific to both sM2 and CTA1.
To assess the mucosal immune responses, the local IgA levels were determined by ELISA. Lung and intestinal tissues were collected at day 28 of immunization and examined using sM2 protein as a coating antigen. In both routes of vaccination, pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced significantly increased levels of sM2specific mucosal IgA compared to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups. However, as expected, higher levels of antibody titers were detected at the site of inoculation than at the remote site. A similar pattern of antibody responses was observed for both routes of immunization, in which the pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei groups dominated ( Fig. 2C and D) . These data demonstrated that cholera toxin subunit A1-conjugated sM2 resulted in significant enhancements to the sM2-specific IgG and mucosal IgA levels compared with sM2 alone or with controls immunized with pgsA/ L. casei or PBS.
Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2 Stimulated M2-specific Cellular Immune Response
To determine whether mucosal vaccination with L. casei surfacedisplayed sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 could induce cellular immunity, IFN-c and IL-4 ELISPOT were performed. Splenocytes from vaccinated mice were stimulated with 10 mg/ml of recombinant sM2 protein or M2 peptide, and the cytokine ELISPOTs were developed. The spots were counted to measure the differences in the CTL responses between the groups. Cells from the mice immunized i.n. with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed significant levels of IFN-c in response to stimulation with sM2 protein and M2 peptide (Fig. 3A) . Similarly, we observed that i.n. administered groups both for pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed detectable levels of IL-4 secreting splenocytes following stimulation with either sM2 protein or M2 peptide (Fig. 3B) . IFN-c and IL-4 secreting cells were also observed in mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 3C ) although their levels were lower than i.n. group and were not significant. Control group immunized with pgsA/L. casei showed background spot level for both in intranasal and oral groups. These findings indicate that highly conserved sM2 can induce M2-specific IFN-c and IL-4 secreting T cell responses, while mucosal delivery through L. casei and CTA1 conjugation with sM2 enhanced the cell mediated immunity, which may contribute to broadening the protective immunity.
M2 is known as a potential target for the development of broad spectrum influenza vaccine with minimum variability [36, 37] . To confirm the variability of sM2 sequences of the challenged viruses used in this study, we compared the sM2 of influenza subtypes available from U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) with our consensus sM2 sequence particularly the whole conserved ecto and some portion of cytoplasmic domain (CD) although entire CD was included in vaccine construct (Table 1) . We found that, viruses used in this study contain 0-8 mismatched amino acids among the amino acids of sM2 compared in this study. To evaluate the efficacy of the sM2 vaccine, week after the final immunization, mice were challenged i.n. with the 10 MLD 50 of A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2) influenza virus subtypes that was homologous to the consensus sM2 sequence. Mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/ L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed 40 and 60% protection respectively. Similarly, i.n. immunization groups conferred 40 and 80%, against the lethal infection with highly virulent H5N2 virus. In contrast, none of the unimmunized mice survived after lethal infection ( Fig. 4A and B, right panel) . Morbidity was increased in the mice immunized via oral route, whereas mice that received i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost ,20% of their initial body weight and started recovering by 9 day post infection (dpi) and had completely recovered by day 13 (Fig. 4A and B, left panel) .
We next evaluated the protection efficiency of sM2 vaccine candidate against A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), which contains 8 mismatched amino acids relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Sets of vaccinated mice were challenged with 10 MLD 50 of the H1N1 virus. As shown in figure 4C and D, mice immunized by the The mice were grouped as mentioned in materials and methods and received oral or nasal administrations, according to the schedule. Arrows indicated the immunization routes and periods of pgsA/L. casei, pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells. Sera were collected at days 0, 14 and 28; samples from the lungs and intestines were collected at day 28 after immunization. A week after the final immunization, spleens were excised from 3 mice in each group, with one set for CTL analysis. Two or 24 weeks after the last immunization, all mice were challenged with a lethal dose of influenza subtypes through intranasal route and monitored for 13 days. On days 3 and 5 post infection, the lungs were excised from 3 mice in each group to determine the virus titer. On 5 dpi, the mice from one set were sacrificed for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g001 CTA1-sM2 Induces Protective Immunity to Pathogenic Influenza A Viruses PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org i.n route exhibited a higher level of protection than the orally immunized groups, and mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei showed a significantly higher level of protection compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, right panel) . Unimmunized mice lost up to 40% of their body weight and died by 9 dpi. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost approximately 10% of their body weight, whereas mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei lost .20% of their initial body weight by 9 dpi and recovered more slowly than mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, left panel) .
Another set of vaccinated mice were infected with A/Chicken/ Korea/116/2004(H9N2) to check the range of protection ability of sM2 vaccine induced immune responses. The sM2 sequence of H9N2 contains 2 mismatched relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. The mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight losses and gradual recovery compared to those of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and the unimmunized mice for both the i.n and oral routes (Fig. 4E and F left panel) . None of the unimmunized mice survived, whereas 100% and 80% of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei via the i.n. and oral routes survived, respectively. The survival rates of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei were 80% and 60% for the i.n. and oral routes, respectively ( Fig. 4E and F, right panel) .
The breadth of protection of the sM2 vaccine against divergent influenza subtypes was also evaluated. Set of immunized mice were challenged with high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A/ EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), which contains 2 amino acid mismatches relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Mice immunized via the i.n. and oral routes with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed higher protection efficacies, 80% and 60%, respectively, compared with mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei, for which the rates were 60% and 20%, respectively ( Fig. 4G and H, right panel) . Regarding morbidity, mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed lower morbidity than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4G and H, left panel) . One more set of vaccinated mice were challenged with the A/Aquatic bird/ Korea/W44/2005 (H7N3) virus, which contains 1 mismatch relative to the consensus sM2 sequence, and the body weight and survival were observed for 13 dpi. As shown in figure 4I and J, unimmunized mice lost as much as 30% of their body weight than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4I and J, left panel) . Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei through the i.n route showed significantly higher level of protection against the H7N3 influenza virus than the other groups ( Fig. 4I and J, right panel) . Taken together, the results indicate that i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced immune responses that conferred significant levels of protection against divergent subtypes of influenza viruses containing mismatched amino acids ranging from 0 to 8 of the consensus sM2, regardless of whether it was complete or partial.
Virus titers in the lungs of challenged mice were measured to estimate replication at 3 and 5 dpi. Mice were immunized via the i.n and oral routes with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei and challenged with the H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 or H7N3 influenza subtypes. On 3 and 5 dpi, 3 mice were sacrificed randomly from each group, and their lung virus titers were measured using the TCID 50 method. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei had lower titers at 3 dpi and had significantly reduced viral replication at 5 dpi compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or the control groups at the same time ( Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced viral titers in the lungs were observed in groups of mice immunized via the i.n route relative to the mice immunized via the oral route, particularly at day 3 post infections (Fig. 5) . These reduced titers may be due to routes of vaccination and challenge being the same, and the titers correlated with the survival results for lethal infections with H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 and H7N3. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the consensus sM2 protein fused with CTA1 afforded better protection than sM2, and the i.n route was more potent than the oral route of immunization with regard to protection against a lethal challenge of divergent influenza subtypes.
Histopathology and immunohistochemistry were performed to corroborate the lung virus titer findings. At 5 dpi, lungs were randomly collected from each group of one set, fixed and stained with eosin before being examined under a light microscope. As shown in figure 5K , clear signs of profound pulmonary inflammation were observed in the lungs of mice treated with PBS or pgsA/L. casei for both the oral and i.n routes of administration, whereas the lungs of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed no remarkable pulmonary inflammation compare to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei-treated mice (Fig. 5K, middle and left panel) . For immunohistochemistry, immunoperoxidase method with an antibody directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus was used for the detection of virus infected cells in the respective tissues. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. As shown in figure 5K, at 5 days p.i., numerous virusinfected cells were detected in control or pgsA-sM2/L. casei vaccinated mice, whereas highly reduced number of antigen positive cells were found in the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, both in i.n. and orally immunized group (Fig. 5K right panel) . These results indicate that mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei developed immune responses that are strong enough to inhibit virus replication, which promotes the survival of mice after a lethal infection by influenza A.
The PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei Vaccination Induced Longlasting Cross Protection
The duration of protection is an important criterion for a potential vaccine. Thus, the longevity of the immunity induced by sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 were investigated by detecting serum IgG and mucosal IgA by ELISA. Significantly increase levels of sM2-specific serum IgG as well as lung and intestinal IgA were observed 180 days after vaccination ( Fig. 6A and C) compare to PBS and pgsA/L. casei groups. Mice were challenged with A/ Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), and the body weight changes and survival were monitored until 13 dpi. The unimmunized mice showed .30% body weight loss (Fig. 6B and D left panel) and died by day 9 post infection in both the oral and i.n. groups. In contrast, the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight loss, which was recovered by 13 dpi; 80% survived in the i.n. immunized group (Fig. 6B right panel) , and 60% survived in the orally immunized group (Fig. 6D right panel) . This result indicates that the CTA1conjugated sM2 mucosal vaccine conferred protection against a lethal infection 6 months after the final immunization.
The mucosal immune system is the first immunological barrier against the pathogens that invade the body via the mucosal surface. Thus, the induction of mucosal immunity is necessary to ensure protection against multiple subtypes of influenza A virus. A respiratory virus, influenza A is responsible for annual seasonal epidemics worldwide and, occasionally, pandemics, which are caused by emerging novel subtypes/strains derived through reassortment with avian or porcine viruses. Current influenza vaccines provide strain-specific protection only. Thus, it is crucial to establish a broadly cross-protective influenza vaccine. Antigens that are well conserved among influenza A viruses are considered promising targets for the induction of cross-protection against these different subtypes. However, the goal should be the development of a first line of defense by effectively eliminating pathogens at the mucosal surface. Influenza matrix protein-2 (M2) is relatively well conserved among the influenza subtypes and can be considered a promising influenza vaccine antigen [30] . It consists of the following three structural domains: a 24-amino-acid extracellular domain, a 19-amino-acid transmembrane domain, and a 54-amino-acid cytoplasmic tail domain [39, 40] . The extracellular and cytoplasmic domains, which are well conserved among influenza viruses and play an important role in viral assembly and morphogenesis, were used in this study. Here, we developed sM2 consensus derived from the analysis of sequences of H5N1, H1N1 and H9N2 subtypes in the database. Considering the previous findings that extracellular domain particularly (aa, 1-13) is highly conserved among the influenza virus subtypes and recognized as epitope for the induction of monoclonal antibodies, which could protect influenza virus infection [56] , sM2 backbone sequence from the H5N1 virus were used. For the possible homology among other subtypes we changed at the position of 14 (E-G) and 18 (R-K) and kept unchanged the conserved epitope (aa, 1-13). As shown in sequence alignment, sM2 of consensus sequence has 0-8 mismatches among the subtypes used in this study (Table 1) .
Moreover, the incorporation of an adjuvant is considered essential to boost the interaction of the vaccine with the mucosal immune system [41] . Various adjuvants, such as liposomes, nanoparticles, and immunostimulating complexes (ISCOMs), have been studied and were found to improve the immune response [42] , but their efficacies were not optimal. Despite its potential as a mucosal adjuvant [43] , the use of cholera toxin (CT) in vaccines is limited by its innate toxicity. Thus, the toxicity of CT would have to be separated from its adjuvanticity before it could be used as a vaccine adjuvant. Studies have shown that constructs consisting of M2e fused with cholera toxin subunit A1 along with a strong ADPribosylating agent and a dimer of the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus protein A vaccine elicited complete protection and reduced morbidity [6, 44] . CTA1 retains the adjuvant function of CT without its toxic side effects, such as reactogenicity at the site of its administration and binding to or accumulation in the nervous tissues [45] . Based on previous findings, it has been hypothesized that the consensus sM2 fragment, when fused with the potent mucosal adjuvant CTA1, may induce broad protective immunity against divergent subtypes of influenza virus. In this study, we used the whole 22-kDa CTA1 protein (an ADP ribosyltransferase), which consists of three distinct subdomains: CTA11 (residues 1 to 132), CTA12 (residues 133 to 161), and CTA13 (residues 162 to 192). It has been reported that CTA1 lacking CTB has strong adjuvant activities without any toxicity. CTA1 enhances the IgA and IgG antibody responses, as well as CTL activity [47] .
For the development of a universal mucosal influenza vaccine with a conserved sM2 peptide and potent adjuvant CTA1, recombinant L. casei displaying sM2 fused with or without CTA1
The lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed clear alveoli without inflammatory cell infiltration, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control mice, both of which revealed features of severe pneumonitis (middle and left panel). Reduced number of viral antigen were detected in lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control revealed features of severe pneumonitis with increase virus antigen (right panel). Micrographs are representative for each treatment group at a magnification of 200X. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. In lung titers, bars denote mean 6 S.D. The asterisk indicates a significant difference between pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei and other groups (*P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g005 were constructed for mucosal delivery by the widely used live vaccine vehicle LAB [38] . The pgsA gene used in this study is an anchor for display on the surface of LAB which is derived from the pgsBCA enzyme complex of Bacillus subtilis and consists of transmembrane domain near its N-terminus with the domain located on the outside of the cell membrane. Thus, pgsA is able to cross the cell wall and display the heterologous protein fused to its C-terminus [17] .
The developed vaccines were tested through two major routes. We found that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei was able to induce a significantly higher level of sM2-specific serum IgG ( Fig. 2A and B ) and mucosal IgA (Fig. 2C and D) compared to pgsA-sM2/L. casei, and conferring protection against divergent influenza subtypes of both phylogenetic group 1 (H1, H5, H9) and group 2 (H7) [46] (Fig. 4) . This study also revealed that i.n. administration was superior to the oral route of vaccination, which is consistent with other observations [48] . There may be two possible reasons to explain this phenomenon. First, the challenge route is the same as that of the vaccination; specific mucosal IgA can prevent viral colonization in the respiratory tract. Second, the volume of the inocula was 5 times lower than that for oral inoculation, which may have allowed the concentrated form of the antigen to be presented to immune cells. Because greater levels of serum IgG and mucosal IgA were detected in intranasally immunized mice than in those immunized orally (Fig. 2) , an alternative explanation could be that the antigens are processed and/or presented differently to immune cells in the two mucosal compartments. Importantly, our study demonstrated for the first time that mucosal immunization with the LAB surface-displayed CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate induced broad protection against challenge with divergent influenza subtypes.
However, the mechanism by which Abs against sM2 mediated this broad protection is not fully understood. Previous studies have demonstrated that Abs to the N-terminus of M2e, particularly positions 1-10, inhibited the replication of the influenza A virus [49, 50] . Other studies revealed that anti-M2e IgG-mediated cellular cytotoxicity or phagocytosis can induce the removal of infected cells before progeny virus budding and spread [54, 55] which is supporting our findings of lung virus titer and immunohistochemistry data detected at 5 dpi in our challenge experiments. Therefore, in this study, combination of those responses and Abs to the N-terminus of the sM2 sequence which is conserved among the challenge viruses (Table 1 ) may protect the divergent influenza subtypes after mucosal immunization with the recombinant LAB CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate. Moreover, the cellular immune response plays an important role in controlling viral replication. We examined the Th1-type (IFN-c) and Th2-type (IL-4) cytokine responses by the ELISPOT assay. Significantly higher levels of IFN-c were detected in response to stimulation with both the sM2 protein and M2 peptide in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei compared to the levels in mice in the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups ( Fig. 3A and C) . Similarly, substantially high levels of IL-4 were observed in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei upon stimulation with the sM2 protein and M2 peptide ( Fig. 3B and D) . These results further support the findings that the antibodies and cell-mediated cytotoxicity were specific to the M2 antigen and that their anti-viral activities were induced by monomeric M2, three copies of M2 fused with ASP-1 [34, 51, 52] . Together, these results indicate that sM2 adjuvanted with fused CTA1 induced immune responses in mice, which protected them from divergent influenza subtypes. In this regard, our results have significance for the use of CTA1, which has adjuvant function, in vaccine candidates.
As clinical protection is not the only parameter by which vaccine performance is assessed, we evaluated the immunogenicity of the recombinant LAB vaccine on the basis of other parameters, such as the reduction of pathological lesions and virus shedding. In this study, low titers of the challenge virus were titrated from the lungs after vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, whereas challenge virus could be detected at higher titers in the mock mice and those vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced gross and histopathological lesions consistent with viral infection are the primary parameters indicative of influenza vaccine efficacy. Here, we demonstrated that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei remarkably limited the severity of the damage by inhibiting viral replication and the accumulation of inflammatory cells and virus antigen in the lung alveolar tissues, relative to the severity in the unimmunized mice and the mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5K) .
Our study further demonstrated, for the first time, that recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-sM2 induced long-lasting immunity and conferred protection against lethal infections by influenza, even at 6 months after the final vaccination (Fig. 6) , which is important for any successful vaccine. Similar results were observed in previous studies, in which M2 VLP conferred longterm immunity and cross protection and the antibodies in the sera and mucosal sites were long lived [53, 54] .
In conclusion, our findings revealed that the mucosal immunization of mice with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated sM2 can induce systemic and local, as well as cellmediated, immune responses against divergent influenza virus subtypes. Thus, the recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated consensus sM2 mucosal vaccine may be a promising vaccine candidate for influenza pandemic preparedness. | What primer pairs were used for PCR? | {
"answer_start": [
10971
],
"text": [
"59-GGGGTACCTCATTATTAACA-39, and 59-ACGTCGACT-CATTATTCAAGTTCAATAATG AC-39"
]
} | false |
5,189 | Mucosal Vaccination with Recombinant Lactobacillus casei-Displayed CTA1-Conjugated Consensus Matrix Protein-2 (sM2) Induces Broad Protection against Divergent Influenza Subtypes in BALB/c Mice
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979752/
SHA: efaa556b484fbcd9cc34832ffac53ef3e834e9c0
Authors: Chowdhury, Mohammed Y. E.; Li, Rui; Kim, Jae-Hoon; Park, Min-Eun; Kim, Tae-Hwan; Pathinayake, Prabuddha; Weeratunga, Prasanna; Song, Man Ki; Son, Hwa-Young; Hong, Seung-Pyo; Sung, Moon-Hee; Lee, Jong-Soo; Kim, Chul-Joong
Date: 2014-04-08
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094051
License: cc-by
Abstract: To develop a safe and effective mucosal vaccine against pathogenic influenza viruses, we constructed recombinant Lactobacillus casei strains that express conserved matrix protein 2 with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei) or without (pgsA-sM2/L. casei) cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) on the surface. The surface localization of the fusion protein was verified by cellular fractionation analyses, flow cytometry and immunofluorescence microscopy. Oral and nasal inoculations of recombinant L. casei into mice resulted in high levels of serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) and mucosal IgA. However, the conjugation of cholera toxin subunit A1 induced more potent mucosal, humoral and cell-mediated immune responses. In a challenge test with 10 MLD(50) of A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird /Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) viruses, the recombinant pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei provided better protection against lethal challenges than pgsA-sM2/L. casei, pgsA/L. casei and PBS in mice. These results indicate that mucosal immunization with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-conjugated sM2 protein on its surface is an effective means of eliciting protective immune responses against diverse influenza subtypes.
Text: Vaccination remains most economical and effective means against respiratory diseases caused by influenza viruses [1] . Based on the circulating viruses in the population, trivalent vaccine strains have been developed and are used for the influenza virus protection [2] . The most acceptable current available strategy is the intramuscular administration of inactivated vaccines produced by egg-based manufacturing systems which while effective, are hampered by limited capacity and flexibility [3] . However, vaccine strains must be frequently adapted to match the circulating viruses throughout the world [4] . In addition, the levels of antibody induced by the inactivated vaccine have been observed to decrease by 75% over an 8-month period [2, 5] . Therefore, alternative strategies for developing broadly cross-protective, safe and effective vaccines against influenza viral infections are of prominent importance.
Matrix protein 2 (M2) is highly conserved among influenza A virus strains, indicating that M2 is an attractive target for developing a universal vaccine [6] . In previous studies, various constructs of the M2 vaccine have been developed and tested, including recombinant Escherichia coli (E. coli) expressing M2 fusion protein, adenoviral vectors expressing the M2 protein, plasmid DNA encoding M2 [7] [8] [9] and peptides encoding M2e [11] , each of which was able to elicit protective immune responses in mice. However, the drawback of these M2-based vaccines is their low immunogenicity; additionally, most of them would require intramuscular injections. Therefore, many strategies have been applied focusing on increasing the immunogenicity of M2-based vaccines, for example, fusion of M2 with different carrier molecules like human papilloma virus L protein [12] , keyhole limpet hemocyanin [10] and flagellin [13] . Furthermore, vaccinations with different adjuvants and routes of administration have been applied to evaluate their protection against divergent strains of influenza viruses. Mice immunized mucosally with an M2 or virus like particles (VLPs) adjuvanted with cholera toxin (CT) demonstrated better protection compared to mice subjected to parenteral immunization [14, 15] . However, due to the adverse effects of CT in humans, investigators have attempted to identify nontoxic subunits with adjuvanticity by removing either subunit A or subunit B [16] . E. coli expressing cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) fused with the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus showed the adjuvant effects without any reactogenicity of the A1 subunit in the mucosal vaccine [6] . Although, chemical or genetic conjugation of M2 may not present M2 in its native tetrameric form, extracellularly accessible antigens expressed on the surfaces of bacteria are better recognized by the immune system than those that are intracellular [17] . Thus, choice of delivery vehicle is also an important concern for potential mucosal vaccines.
Recently, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) presenting influenza virus antigens have been studied [3, 18, 19] . For mucosal immunization, LAB is a more attractive delivery system than other live vaccine vectors, such as Shigella, Salmonella, and Listeria [20, 21] . It is considered safe and exhibits an adjuvant-like effect on mucosal and systemic immunity [18, 22, 23] . Anchoring of the target protein to the cell surfaces of LAB is primarily intended to use in mucosal vaccines. The transmembrane protein pgsA is one of the poly-cglutamate synthetase complexes of Bacillus subtilis [17, 24, 25] , which is a well-studied anchor protein is able to fuse the target protein to its C terminus and stabilize the complex by anchoring it in the cell membrane. Since sM2 is a highly conserved and promising target for a universal vaccine and CTA1 is strong mucosal adjuvant, in this study, we developed constructs using a consensus sM2 gene reconstituted from the analysis of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2 influenza viruses (no trans-membrane domain) with or without the fusion of CTA1. To achieve this, we used a novel expression vector that can express a pgsA gene product as an anchoring matrix. Our target antigens, sM2 and CTA1, were displayed on the surface of Lactobacillus casei, and the oral or intranasal administration of recombinant L. casei induced systemic and mucosal immune responses that have the potential to protect against the lethal challenges of divergent influenza subtypes.
A total of 672 female BALB/c mice (5 weeks old) were purchased from Samtako (Seoul, Korea) and housed in ventilated cages. The mice were managed with pelleted feed and tap water ad libitum, maintained in a specific-pathogen-free environment and all efforts were made to minimize suffering following approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of of Bioleaders Corporation, Daejeon, South Korea, protocol number: BSL-ABLS-13-002. Immunizations of animal were conducted in biosafety level (BSL)-2 laboratory facilities. Mice were divided into 6 experimental sets, each consisting of 2 subsets: 1 for oral and 1 for intranasal administration which contained 4 groups each. Out of 6, 4 sets had 14 mice per group. One sets had 17 (3 mice for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry), and the last contained 11 mice per group (3 mice for CTL response).
Concentrations of recombinant L. casei were determined by colony forming units (CFU). In each subset, 2 groups received 10 10 CFU of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, and the remaining two groups received the same concentration of pKV-pgsA/L. casei or PBS in 100 ml orally via intragastric lavage at days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21 to 23. Similarly, 10 9 CFU of recombinant cells were administered in 20 ml suspensions into the nostrils of lightly anesthetized mice on days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21. Blood samples were collected from the retro-orbital plexus at days 21, 14 and 28; sera were separated by centrifugation for 5 minutes at 12,0006g and stored at 220uC until analysis. At day 28, 3 mice in each group were randomly sacrificed to collect IgA sample from lungs and intestine and stored at 270uC until analysis. Spleens were collected aseptically at day 28 for the analysis of the CTL response randomly from 3 mice of one set. The rest of the mice from the same set were maintained for 6 months from the date of the last boosting to measure the long-lasting immune responses and protection efficacy.
The avian influenza viruses A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/ Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) used in this study were kindly provided by Dr. Young-Ki Choi (College of Medicine and Medical Research Institute, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea). All viruses were propagated in the allantoic fluid of 10-day-old chicken embryos, and 50% mouse lethal doses (MLD 50 ) were determined in 8-week-old naive BALB/ c mice. Ether narcosis-anesthetized mice were intranasally infected with 10 times the MLD 50 of challenge viruses in 20 ml of PBS. Six mice in each group were sacrificed on 3 and 5 dpi to check virus titer in lungs and other 5 mice remained in each group have been used for survival. Mice were monitored every alternate day at fixed time point for measuring the weight loss and survival. Mice were euthanized if moribund, i.e. weight loss, ruffled fur, shivering, tachypnea, respiratory distress, hypothermia and poorly responsive to external stimuli, remaining were considered as survival number. After final monitoring, all the survived mice were humanely euthanized using CO 2 inhalation for 5 minutes.
At 180 days after the final vaccination, mice from one set were challenged with H5N2 for measuring the long lasting immune responses. All challenge tests were conducted inside an approved BSL-3+ facility under appropriate conditions. Bacterial Strains and Cloning for the Construction of Recombinant Plasmid PgsA-sM2/L. casei and PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei In this study, E. coli JM83 was used for cloning and L. casei L525 was used for surface expression of the target protein. These bacteria were grown in LB and MRS media, respectively. The plasmid pKV-Pald-PgsA, harboring the pgsA genes of Bacillus subtilis, was used to construct the surface display plasmid, which was a kind gift from the Bioleaders Corporation (Daejeon, South Korea). A gene encoding the consensus sequence of M2 spanning the residues of the extracellular and cytoplasmic domains without the transmembrane domain of influenza virus was generated. The consensus sequences were created based on the most common amino acids in each position of the alignment of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2; then, they were synthesized and used as templates for the construction of the plasmids pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei by cloning, as described previously [26, 27] . The sM2 gene was modified by adding a Kpn I site at the 59 terminal and Sal I at the 39 terminal for cloning. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed to amplify the gene using the primer pair 59-GGGGTACCTCATTATTAACA-39, and 59-ACGTCGACT-CATTATTCAAGTTCAATAATG AC-39. Similarly, a BamH I site at the 59 terminal and a Kpn I site at the 39 terminal end were added to the CTA1 gene using primers 59-CGGGATCCAAT-GATGATAAGTTATAT-39 and 59-GGGT ACCCGAT-GATCTTGGAGC ATT-39. The modified genes were ligated into the T Easy Vector (Invitrogen, Seoul, Korea). Genes were then digested with Kpn I-Sal I for sM2 and BamH I-Kpn I for CTA1. The digested sM2 was ligated to the plasmid vector pKV-pgsA for the construction of pKV-pgsA-sM2. Similarly, CTA1 was ligated for the construction of pKV-pgsA-CTA1-sM2. The ligated products were transformed into E. coli JM83 competent cells, as previously described, using an electroporation method [17] . The profiles of the recombinant plasmids were confirmed by restriction endonuclease digestion and DNA sequencing (Solgent, Seoul, Korea). After confirmation, the plasmids were transformed into L. casei L525 by electroporation and named pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei.
The recombinant L. casei containing pgsA, pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 genes were grown at 30uC for 48 hours. Cells were harvested by centrifugation at 6,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, followed by washing two times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Bacterial lyses were performed by sonication and centrifuged at 12,0006g for 20 minutes at 4uC. Cell wall and cytoplasmic fractions were separated by centrifugation at 25,0006g at 4uC for 2 hours. Pellets (cell wall) were resuspended in 100 ml of 1% sarcosol containing 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) as a protease inhibitor. Fractions were analyzed by western blotting, as described previously. For the immune detection of fusion proteins, the membranes were probed with rabbit anti-cholera toxin (1:2000, Abcam, UK), rabbit anti-pgsA (1:1000) and rabbit anti-M2 (1:1000) antibodies. The rabbit anti-pgsA and rabbit anti-M2 antibodies used in this experiment were generated by the i.m. inoculation of KLH-conjugated pgsA or M2 peptide in rabbit, respectively, two times at 2 weeks-interval. The membranes were reacted with a 1:10,000 dilution of anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (IgG HRP). Finally, the target proteins were detected using the WEST-ZOL plus Western Blot Detection System (iNtRON Biotechnology, Gyeonggi-do, Korea) and visualized by enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) [17, 26, 28] .
To investigate the expression of sM2 or CTA1-sM2 on the surface of L. casei, recombinant L. casei were grown in 30uC for 48 hours in the MRS broth. Bacteria were harvested by centrifugation at 5,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, washed three times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline containing 0.01% Tween-20 (PBST) and probed with polyclonal rabbit anti-M2 or rabbit anti-CT antibody overnight. Following another washing, the cells were treated with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)conjugated anti-rabbit IgG antibodies (Burlingame, CA, USA) for 2 hours. Finally, 10,000 cells were analyzed by flow cytometry (Becton Dickinson, Oxnard, CA, USA). For the immunofluorescence, cells were prepared under the same condition described for the flow cytometry. The pgsA/L. casei was used as a negative control and Immunofluoresence analysis was examined using a Carl Zeiss Axioskop 2 fluorescence microscope.
ELISA Antibody titers were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using serum or mucosal samples from vaccinated mice. First, 96-well immunosorbent plates (Nunc) were incubated with 300 ng/well purified sM2 or CTA1 proteins at 4uC overnight. The recombinant sM2 and CTA1 proteins used in this study were purified from E. coli. Next, the wells were blocked with 10% skim milk for 2 hours in RT, washed five times with PBST, treated with diluted serum samples (1:200) in triplicate for detecting IgG and undiluted tissue homogenized supernatant for detecting local IgA and incubated for 2 hours at 37uC. After washing three times, goat anti-mouse IgG HRP (1:1000, sigma) or anti-mouse IgA was added to each well and incubated for an additional 2 hours at 37uC. Following another round of washing, the plates were reacted with the substrate solution containing tetramethylbenzidine and H 2 O 2 and allowed to precede the reaction for 10 minutes. After adding the stop solution 2N-H 2 SO 4 , the optical density (OD) was measured at 450 nm using an ELISA autoreader (Molecular devices).
The development and counting of cytokines were performed by ELISPOTs, as described previously [31, 32] . Briefly, the day before the isolation of splenocytes, ELISPOT 96-well plates were coated with monoclonal anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 capture antibodies (5 mg/ml) in PBS and incubated at 4uC overnight. The plates were washed with PBS, and 200 ml/well of blocking solution containing complete RPMI 1640 medium and 10% fetal bovine serum, was added (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and incubated for 2 hours in RT. Spleens from the vaccinated mice were isolated aseptically and added at 5610 4 cells/well in media containing sM2 protein, M2 peptide (SLLTEVETPTRNGWECKCSD) (1 mg/well), only medium (negative control), or 5 mg/ml phytohemagglutinin (positive control, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). After adding cells and stimulators, the plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37uC with 5% CO 2 . The plates were sequentially treated with biotinylated anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 antibodies, streptavidinhorseradish peroxidase, and substrate solution. Finally, the spots were counted using an ImmunoScan Entry analyzer (Cellular Technology, Shaker Heights, USA).
The lungs were collected aseptically, and virus titers were determined by 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID 50 ), as described previously [33] . Briefly, lung tissues were homogenized in 500 ml of PBS containing antibiotics (penicillin, and streptomycin) and antimycotics (Fungizone) compounds (Gibco, Grand Island, NY, USA). Mechanically homogenized lung samples were centrifuged (15 minutes, 12,0006g and 4uC) to remove the cellular debris before their storage at 280uC. MDCK cells were inoculated with a 10-fold serially diluted sample and incubated at 37uC in a humid atmosphere of 5% CO 2 for an hour. After absorption, the media was removed, and overlay medium containing L-1-tosylamido-2-phenylethyl chloromethyl ketone (TPCK) trypsin (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rockford, USA) was added to the infected cells and incubated for 72 hours. Viral cytopathic effects were observed daily, and the titers were determined by the HA test. The viral titer of each sample was expressed as 50% tissue infected doses using the Reed-Muench method [34] .
For histopathology, lung tissues were collected at 5 dpi from ether narcosis-anesthetized mice. Tissues were immediately fixed in 10% formalin containing neutral buffer, embedded in paraffin wax, sectioned at 4-6 mm thickness using a microtome machine, mounted onto slides, and stained with eosin stain. Histopathological changes were examined by light microscopy, as previously described [29, 30, 35] . Furthermore, slides were stained using an immunoperoxidase method with an antibody (rabbit anti-M2, 1:500) directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus. A Goat-anti-rabbit IgG HRP (1:2000, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) was used as the secondary antibody for the detection of virus infected cells in respective tissues [57] .
Data are presented as the means 6 standard deviations (S.D.) and are representative of at least three independent experiments. Differences between groups were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), and means were compared by Student's t-test. P-values less than 0.05 were regarded as significant. Results for percent initial body weight were also compared by using Student's t test.
Comparison of survival was done by log-rank test using GraphPad Prism 6 version.
The pgsA-expressing vector was used to construct plasmids containing the highly conserved consensus sM2 gene, with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2) or without (pgsA-sM2) the cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1, Fig. 1A ). Plasmids were transformed into L. casei cells. The expression levels of pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were monitored by immunoblotting using anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies (data not shown).
To determine the cellular localization of the sM2 and CTA1 proteins expressed on the surface of L. casei via the cell wall anchor protein pgsA, membrane and cytoplasmic fractions were subjected to western blot analysis. As expected, both pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins were detected by anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies in the membrane, not in cytoplasmic fractions (Fig. 1B, lane 2, 3 and 4) . Immunoreactions were performed with anti-pgsA, and bands representing the size of the fused proteins pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were detected, while during the reactions with anti-M2 or anti-CT antibodies, no other bands were detected (Fig. 1B, lane 3 and 4) . This finding may have resulted from the degradation that occurs during the membrane fractionation procedure.
Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and immunofluorescence labeling of the cells were used to verify the localization of the fusion pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 protein on the surface of L. casei. Flow cytometric analysis using rabbit anti-M2 and anti-CT antibodies revealed increase level of fluorescence intensity of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells, compared to that of control L. casei cells (Fig. 1C ). Immunofluorescence microscopy also showed recombinant bacteria harboring pgsA-sM2 or pgsA-CTA1-sM2 that immunostained positive for sM2 and CTA1, but this was not found in control cells. These results demonstrated that recombinant L. casei could efficiently display the sM2 and CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins on the surface, using pgsA as a membrane anchor protein.
Immune Responses Induced by Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface Displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2
Preliminary experiment was conducted to determine the doses and schedule of pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei vaccine candidate on influenza virus protection (data not shown). To characterize the immunogenicity of the L. casei surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1conjugated sM2, BALB/c mice were immunized nasally (10 9 cells/20 ml dose) or orally (10 10 cells/100 ml dose) with recombinant live pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei bacteria. As a negative control, mice were immunized with L. casei harboring the parental plasmid pKV-pgsA (pgsA/L. casei) and PBS. Serum samples were collected at 0, 14 and 28 days and analyzed by ELISA, using sM2 and CTA1 proteins (purified from E. coli) as a coating antigen. After the first series of immunization, comparatively low levels of serum IgG were detected both in the i.n. and orally immunized group. However, high antibody levels were detected shortly after the second series of immunization, and the CTA1-conjugated sM2 group induced serum IgG at significant level, compared to sM2-only group and negative controls ( Fig. 2A and B) . Although the conjugation of CTA1 with sM2 was expected to have an adjuvant function only, a significant level of anti-CTA1 antibodies was detected in both the nasal and oral vaccinations ( Fig. 2A and B right panel) . In comparison with the oral group, the nasally immunized group showed higher levels of serum IgG specific to both sM2 and CTA1.
To assess the mucosal immune responses, the local IgA levels were determined by ELISA. Lung and intestinal tissues were collected at day 28 of immunization and examined using sM2 protein as a coating antigen. In both routes of vaccination, pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced significantly increased levels of sM2specific mucosal IgA compared to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups. However, as expected, higher levels of antibody titers were detected at the site of inoculation than at the remote site. A similar pattern of antibody responses was observed for both routes of immunization, in which the pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei groups dominated ( Fig. 2C and D) . These data demonstrated that cholera toxin subunit A1-conjugated sM2 resulted in significant enhancements to the sM2-specific IgG and mucosal IgA levels compared with sM2 alone or with controls immunized with pgsA/ L. casei or PBS.
Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2 Stimulated M2-specific Cellular Immune Response
To determine whether mucosal vaccination with L. casei surfacedisplayed sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 could induce cellular immunity, IFN-c and IL-4 ELISPOT were performed. Splenocytes from vaccinated mice were stimulated with 10 mg/ml of recombinant sM2 protein or M2 peptide, and the cytokine ELISPOTs were developed. The spots were counted to measure the differences in the CTL responses between the groups. Cells from the mice immunized i.n. with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed significant levels of IFN-c in response to stimulation with sM2 protein and M2 peptide (Fig. 3A) . Similarly, we observed that i.n. administered groups both for pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed detectable levels of IL-4 secreting splenocytes following stimulation with either sM2 protein or M2 peptide (Fig. 3B) . IFN-c and IL-4 secreting cells were also observed in mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 3C ) although their levels were lower than i.n. group and were not significant. Control group immunized with pgsA/L. casei showed background spot level for both in intranasal and oral groups. These findings indicate that highly conserved sM2 can induce M2-specific IFN-c and IL-4 secreting T cell responses, while mucosal delivery through L. casei and CTA1 conjugation with sM2 enhanced the cell mediated immunity, which may contribute to broadening the protective immunity.
M2 is known as a potential target for the development of broad spectrum influenza vaccine with minimum variability [36, 37] . To confirm the variability of sM2 sequences of the challenged viruses used in this study, we compared the sM2 of influenza subtypes available from U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) with our consensus sM2 sequence particularly the whole conserved ecto and some portion of cytoplasmic domain (CD) although entire CD was included in vaccine construct (Table 1) . We found that, viruses used in this study contain 0-8 mismatched amino acids among the amino acids of sM2 compared in this study. To evaluate the efficacy of the sM2 vaccine, week after the final immunization, mice were challenged i.n. with the 10 MLD 50 of A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2) influenza virus subtypes that was homologous to the consensus sM2 sequence. Mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/ L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed 40 and 60% protection respectively. Similarly, i.n. immunization groups conferred 40 and 80%, against the lethal infection with highly virulent H5N2 virus. In contrast, none of the unimmunized mice survived after lethal infection ( Fig. 4A and B, right panel) . Morbidity was increased in the mice immunized via oral route, whereas mice that received i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost ,20% of their initial body weight and started recovering by 9 day post infection (dpi) and had completely recovered by day 13 (Fig. 4A and B, left panel) .
We next evaluated the protection efficiency of sM2 vaccine candidate against A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), which contains 8 mismatched amino acids relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Sets of vaccinated mice were challenged with 10 MLD 50 of the H1N1 virus. As shown in figure 4C and D, mice immunized by the The mice were grouped as mentioned in materials and methods and received oral or nasal administrations, according to the schedule. Arrows indicated the immunization routes and periods of pgsA/L. casei, pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells. Sera were collected at days 0, 14 and 28; samples from the lungs and intestines were collected at day 28 after immunization. A week after the final immunization, spleens were excised from 3 mice in each group, with one set for CTL analysis. Two or 24 weeks after the last immunization, all mice were challenged with a lethal dose of influenza subtypes through intranasal route and monitored for 13 days. On days 3 and 5 post infection, the lungs were excised from 3 mice in each group to determine the virus titer. On 5 dpi, the mice from one set were sacrificed for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g001 CTA1-sM2 Induces Protective Immunity to Pathogenic Influenza A Viruses PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org i.n route exhibited a higher level of protection than the orally immunized groups, and mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei showed a significantly higher level of protection compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, right panel) . Unimmunized mice lost up to 40% of their body weight and died by 9 dpi. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost approximately 10% of their body weight, whereas mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei lost .20% of their initial body weight by 9 dpi and recovered more slowly than mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, left panel) .
Another set of vaccinated mice were infected with A/Chicken/ Korea/116/2004(H9N2) to check the range of protection ability of sM2 vaccine induced immune responses. The sM2 sequence of H9N2 contains 2 mismatched relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. The mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight losses and gradual recovery compared to those of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and the unimmunized mice for both the i.n and oral routes (Fig. 4E and F left panel) . None of the unimmunized mice survived, whereas 100% and 80% of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei via the i.n. and oral routes survived, respectively. The survival rates of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei were 80% and 60% for the i.n. and oral routes, respectively ( Fig. 4E and F, right panel) .
The breadth of protection of the sM2 vaccine against divergent influenza subtypes was also evaluated. Set of immunized mice were challenged with high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A/ EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), which contains 2 amino acid mismatches relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Mice immunized via the i.n. and oral routes with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed higher protection efficacies, 80% and 60%, respectively, compared with mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei, for which the rates were 60% and 20%, respectively ( Fig. 4G and H, right panel) . Regarding morbidity, mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed lower morbidity than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4G and H, left panel) . One more set of vaccinated mice were challenged with the A/Aquatic bird/ Korea/W44/2005 (H7N3) virus, which contains 1 mismatch relative to the consensus sM2 sequence, and the body weight and survival were observed for 13 dpi. As shown in figure 4I and J, unimmunized mice lost as much as 30% of their body weight than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4I and J, left panel) . Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei through the i.n route showed significantly higher level of protection against the H7N3 influenza virus than the other groups ( Fig. 4I and J, right panel) . Taken together, the results indicate that i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced immune responses that conferred significant levels of protection against divergent subtypes of influenza viruses containing mismatched amino acids ranging from 0 to 8 of the consensus sM2, regardless of whether it was complete or partial.
Virus titers in the lungs of challenged mice were measured to estimate replication at 3 and 5 dpi. Mice were immunized via the i.n and oral routes with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei and challenged with the H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 or H7N3 influenza subtypes. On 3 and 5 dpi, 3 mice were sacrificed randomly from each group, and their lung virus titers were measured using the TCID 50 method. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei had lower titers at 3 dpi and had significantly reduced viral replication at 5 dpi compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or the control groups at the same time ( Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced viral titers in the lungs were observed in groups of mice immunized via the i.n route relative to the mice immunized via the oral route, particularly at day 3 post infections (Fig. 5) . These reduced titers may be due to routes of vaccination and challenge being the same, and the titers correlated with the survival results for lethal infections with H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 and H7N3. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the consensus sM2 protein fused with CTA1 afforded better protection than sM2, and the i.n route was more potent than the oral route of immunization with regard to protection against a lethal challenge of divergent influenza subtypes.
Histopathology and immunohistochemistry were performed to corroborate the lung virus titer findings. At 5 dpi, lungs were randomly collected from each group of one set, fixed and stained with eosin before being examined under a light microscope. As shown in figure 5K , clear signs of profound pulmonary inflammation were observed in the lungs of mice treated with PBS or pgsA/L. casei for both the oral and i.n routes of administration, whereas the lungs of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed no remarkable pulmonary inflammation compare to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei-treated mice (Fig. 5K, middle and left panel) . For immunohistochemistry, immunoperoxidase method with an antibody directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus was used for the detection of virus infected cells in the respective tissues. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. As shown in figure 5K, at 5 days p.i., numerous virusinfected cells were detected in control or pgsA-sM2/L. casei vaccinated mice, whereas highly reduced number of antigen positive cells were found in the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, both in i.n. and orally immunized group (Fig. 5K right panel) . These results indicate that mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei developed immune responses that are strong enough to inhibit virus replication, which promotes the survival of mice after a lethal infection by influenza A.
The PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei Vaccination Induced Longlasting Cross Protection
The duration of protection is an important criterion for a potential vaccine. Thus, the longevity of the immunity induced by sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 were investigated by detecting serum IgG and mucosal IgA by ELISA. Significantly increase levels of sM2-specific serum IgG as well as lung and intestinal IgA were observed 180 days after vaccination ( Fig. 6A and C) compare to PBS and pgsA/L. casei groups. Mice were challenged with A/ Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), and the body weight changes and survival were monitored until 13 dpi. The unimmunized mice showed .30% body weight loss (Fig. 6B and D left panel) and died by day 9 post infection in both the oral and i.n. groups. In contrast, the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight loss, which was recovered by 13 dpi; 80% survived in the i.n. immunized group (Fig. 6B right panel) , and 60% survived in the orally immunized group (Fig. 6D right panel) . This result indicates that the CTA1conjugated sM2 mucosal vaccine conferred protection against a lethal infection 6 months after the final immunization.
The mucosal immune system is the first immunological barrier against the pathogens that invade the body via the mucosal surface. Thus, the induction of mucosal immunity is necessary to ensure protection against multiple subtypes of influenza A virus. A respiratory virus, influenza A is responsible for annual seasonal epidemics worldwide and, occasionally, pandemics, which are caused by emerging novel subtypes/strains derived through reassortment with avian or porcine viruses. Current influenza vaccines provide strain-specific protection only. Thus, it is crucial to establish a broadly cross-protective influenza vaccine. Antigens that are well conserved among influenza A viruses are considered promising targets for the induction of cross-protection against these different subtypes. However, the goal should be the development of a first line of defense by effectively eliminating pathogens at the mucosal surface. Influenza matrix protein-2 (M2) is relatively well conserved among the influenza subtypes and can be considered a promising influenza vaccine antigen [30] . It consists of the following three structural domains: a 24-amino-acid extracellular domain, a 19-amino-acid transmembrane domain, and a 54-amino-acid cytoplasmic tail domain [39, 40] . The extracellular and cytoplasmic domains, which are well conserved among influenza viruses and play an important role in viral assembly and morphogenesis, were used in this study. Here, we developed sM2 consensus derived from the analysis of sequences of H5N1, H1N1 and H9N2 subtypes in the database. Considering the previous findings that extracellular domain particularly (aa, 1-13) is highly conserved among the influenza virus subtypes and recognized as epitope for the induction of monoclonal antibodies, which could protect influenza virus infection [56] , sM2 backbone sequence from the H5N1 virus were used. For the possible homology among other subtypes we changed at the position of 14 (E-G) and 18 (R-K) and kept unchanged the conserved epitope (aa, 1-13). As shown in sequence alignment, sM2 of consensus sequence has 0-8 mismatches among the subtypes used in this study (Table 1) .
Moreover, the incorporation of an adjuvant is considered essential to boost the interaction of the vaccine with the mucosal immune system [41] . Various adjuvants, such as liposomes, nanoparticles, and immunostimulating complexes (ISCOMs), have been studied and were found to improve the immune response [42] , but their efficacies were not optimal. Despite its potential as a mucosal adjuvant [43] , the use of cholera toxin (CT) in vaccines is limited by its innate toxicity. Thus, the toxicity of CT would have to be separated from its adjuvanticity before it could be used as a vaccine adjuvant. Studies have shown that constructs consisting of M2e fused with cholera toxin subunit A1 along with a strong ADPribosylating agent and a dimer of the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus protein A vaccine elicited complete protection and reduced morbidity [6, 44] . CTA1 retains the adjuvant function of CT without its toxic side effects, such as reactogenicity at the site of its administration and binding to or accumulation in the nervous tissues [45] . Based on previous findings, it has been hypothesized that the consensus sM2 fragment, when fused with the potent mucosal adjuvant CTA1, may induce broad protective immunity against divergent subtypes of influenza virus. In this study, we used the whole 22-kDa CTA1 protein (an ADP ribosyltransferase), which consists of three distinct subdomains: CTA11 (residues 1 to 132), CTA12 (residues 133 to 161), and CTA13 (residues 162 to 192). It has been reported that CTA1 lacking CTB has strong adjuvant activities without any toxicity. CTA1 enhances the IgA and IgG antibody responses, as well as CTL activity [47] .
For the development of a universal mucosal influenza vaccine with a conserved sM2 peptide and potent adjuvant CTA1, recombinant L. casei displaying sM2 fused with or without CTA1
The lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed clear alveoli without inflammatory cell infiltration, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control mice, both of which revealed features of severe pneumonitis (middle and left panel). Reduced number of viral antigen were detected in lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control revealed features of severe pneumonitis with increase virus antigen (right panel). Micrographs are representative for each treatment group at a magnification of 200X. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. In lung titers, bars denote mean 6 S.D. The asterisk indicates a significant difference between pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei and other groups (*P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g005 were constructed for mucosal delivery by the widely used live vaccine vehicle LAB [38] . The pgsA gene used in this study is an anchor for display on the surface of LAB which is derived from the pgsBCA enzyme complex of Bacillus subtilis and consists of transmembrane domain near its N-terminus with the domain located on the outside of the cell membrane. Thus, pgsA is able to cross the cell wall and display the heterologous protein fused to its C-terminus [17] .
The developed vaccines were tested through two major routes. We found that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei was able to induce a significantly higher level of sM2-specific serum IgG ( Fig. 2A and B ) and mucosal IgA (Fig. 2C and D) compared to pgsA-sM2/L. casei, and conferring protection against divergent influenza subtypes of both phylogenetic group 1 (H1, H5, H9) and group 2 (H7) [46] (Fig. 4) . This study also revealed that i.n. administration was superior to the oral route of vaccination, which is consistent with other observations [48] . There may be two possible reasons to explain this phenomenon. First, the challenge route is the same as that of the vaccination; specific mucosal IgA can prevent viral colonization in the respiratory tract. Second, the volume of the inocula was 5 times lower than that for oral inoculation, which may have allowed the concentrated form of the antigen to be presented to immune cells. Because greater levels of serum IgG and mucosal IgA were detected in intranasally immunized mice than in those immunized orally (Fig. 2) , an alternative explanation could be that the antigens are processed and/or presented differently to immune cells in the two mucosal compartments. Importantly, our study demonstrated for the first time that mucosal immunization with the LAB surface-displayed CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate induced broad protection against challenge with divergent influenza subtypes.
However, the mechanism by which Abs against sM2 mediated this broad protection is not fully understood. Previous studies have demonstrated that Abs to the N-terminus of M2e, particularly positions 1-10, inhibited the replication of the influenza A virus [49, 50] . Other studies revealed that anti-M2e IgG-mediated cellular cytotoxicity or phagocytosis can induce the removal of infected cells before progeny virus budding and spread [54, 55] which is supporting our findings of lung virus titer and immunohistochemistry data detected at 5 dpi in our challenge experiments. Therefore, in this study, combination of those responses and Abs to the N-terminus of the sM2 sequence which is conserved among the challenge viruses (Table 1 ) may protect the divergent influenza subtypes after mucosal immunization with the recombinant LAB CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate. Moreover, the cellular immune response plays an important role in controlling viral replication. We examined the Th1-type (IFN-c) and Th2-type (IL-4) cytokine responses by the ELISPOT assay. Significantly higher levels of IFN-c were detected in response to stimulation with both the sM2 protein and M2 peptide in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei compared to the levels in mice in the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups ( Fig. 3A and C) . Similarly, substantially high levels of IL-4 were observed in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei upon stimulation with the sM2 protein and M2 peptide ( Fig. 3B and D) . These results further support the findings that the antibodies and cell-mediated cytotoxicity were specific to the M2 antigen and that their anti-viral activities were induced by monomeric M2, three copies of M2 fused with ASP-1 [34, 51, 52] . Together, these results indicate that sM2 adjuvanted with fused CTA1 induced immune responses in mice, which protected them from divergent influenza subtypes. In this regard, our results have significance for the use of CTA1, which has adjuvant function, in vaccine candidates.
As clinical protection is not the only parameter by which vaccine performance is assessed, we evaluated the immunogenicity of the recombinant LAB vaccine on the basis of other parameters, such as the reduction of pathological lesions and virus shedding. In this study, low titers of the challenge virus were titrated from the lungs after vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, whereas challenge virus could be detected at higher titers in the mock mice and those vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced gross and histopathological lesions consistent with viral infection are the primary parameters indicative of influenza vaccine efficacy. Here, we demonstrated that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei remarkably limited the severity of the damage by inhibiting viral replication and the accumulation of inflammatory cells and virus antigen in the lung alveolar tissues, relative to the severity in the unimmunized mice and the mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5K) .
Our study further demonstrated, for the first time, that recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-sM2 induced long-lasting immunity and conferred protection against lethal infections by influenza, even at 6 months after the final vaccination (Fig. 6) , which is important for any successful vaccine. Similar results were observed in previous studies, in which M2 VLP conferred longterm immunity and cross protection and the antibodies in the sera and mucosal sites were long lived [53, 54] .
In conclusion, our findings revealed that the mucosal immunization of mice with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated sM2 can induce systemic and local, as well as cellmediated, immune responses against divergent influenza virus subtypes. Thus, the recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated consensus sM2 mucosal vaccine may be a promising vaccine candidate for influenza pandemic preparedness. | What is considered essential to boost the interaction of the influenza vaccine with the mucosal immune system? | {
"answer_start": [
36894
],
"text": [
"the incorporation of an adjuvant"
]
} | false |
5,190 | Mucosal Vaccination with Recombinant Lactobacillus casei-Displayed CTA1-Conjugated Consensus Matrix Protein-2 (sM2) Induces Broad Protection against Divergent Influenza Subtypes in BALB/c Mice
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979752/
SHA: efaa556b484fbcd9cc34832ffac53ef3e834e9c0
Authors: Chowdhury, Mohammed Y. E.; Li, Rui; Kim, Jae-Hoon; Park, Min-Eun; Kim, Tae-Hwan; Pathinayake, Prabuddha; Weeratunga, Prasanna; Song, Man Ki; Son, Hwa-Young; Hong, Seung-Pyo; Sung, Moon-Hee; Lee, Jong-Soo; Kim, Chul-Joong
Date: 2014-04-08
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094051
License: cc-by
Abstract: To develop a safe and effective mucosal vaccine against pathogenic influenza viruses, we constructed recombinant Lactobacillus casei strains that express conserved matrix protein 2 with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei) or without (pgsA-sM2/L. casei) cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) on the surface. The surface localization of the fusion protein was verified by cellular fractionation analyses, flow cytometry and immunofluorescence microscopy. Oral and nasal inoculations of recombinant L. casei into mice resulted in high levels of serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) and mucosal IgA. However, the conjugation of cholera toxin subunit A1 induced more potent mucosal, humoral and cell-mediated immune responses. In a challenge test with 10 MLD(50) of A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird /Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) viruses, the recombinant pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei provided better protection against lethal challenges than pgsA-sM2/L. casei, pgsA/L. casei and PBS in mice. These results indicate that mucosal immunization with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-conjugated sM2 protein on its surface is an effective means of eliciting protective immune responses against diverse influenza subtypes.
Text: Vaccination remains most economical and effective means against respiratory diseases caused by influenza viruses [1] . Based on the circulating viruses in the population, trivalent vaccine strains have been developed and are used for the influenza virus protection [2] . The most acceptable current available strategy is the intramuscular administration of inactivated vaccines produced by egg-based manufacturing systems which while effective, are hampered by limited capacity and flexibility [3] . However, vaccine strains must be frequently adapted to match the circulating viruses throughout the world [4] . In addition, the levels of antibody induced by the inactivated vaccine have been observed to decrease by 75% over an 8-month period [2, 5] . Therefore, alternative strategies for developing broadly cross-protective, safe and effective vaccines against influenza viral infections are of prominent importance.
Matrix protein 2 (M2) is highly conserved among influenza A virus strains, indicating that M2 is an attractive target for developing a universal vaccine [6] . In previous studies, various constructs of the M2 vaccine have been developed and tested, including recombinant Escherichia coli (E. coli) expressing M2 fusion protein, adenoviral vectors expressing the M2 protein, plasmid DNA encoding M2 [7] [8] [9] and peptides encoding M2e [11] , each of which was able to elicit protective immune responses in mice. However, the drawback of these M2-based vaccines is their low immunogenicity; additionally, most of them would require intramuscular injections. Therefore, many strategies have been applied focusing on increasing the immunogenicity of M2-based vaccines, for example, fusion of M2 with different carrier molecules like human papilloma virus L protein [12] , keyhole limpet hemocyanin [10] and flagellin [13] . Furthermore, vaccinations with different adjuvants and routes of administration have been applied to evaluate their protection against divergent strains of influenza viruses. Mice immunized mucosally with an M2 or virus like particles (VLPs) adjuvanted with cholera toxin (CT) demonstrated better protection compared to mice subjected to parenteral immunization [14, 15] . However, due to the adverse effects of CT in humans, investigators have attempted to identify nontoxic subunits with adjuvanticity by removing either subunit A or subunit B [16] . E. coli expressing cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) fused with the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus showed the adjuvant effects without any reactogenicity of the A1 subunit in the mucosal vaccine [6] . Although, chemical or genetic conjugation of M2 may not present M2 in its native tetrameric form, extracellularly accessible antigens expressed on the surfaces of bacteria are better recognized by the immune system than those that are intracellular [17] . Thus, choice of delivery vehicle is also an important concern for potential mucosal vaccines.
Recently, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) presenting influenza virus antigens have been studied [3, 18, 19] . For mucosal immunization, LAB is a more attractive delivery system than other live vaccine vectors, such as Shigella, Salmonella, and Listeria [20, 21] . It is considered safe and exhibits an adjuvant-like effect on mucosal and systemic immunity [18, 22, 23] . Anchoring of the target protein to the cell surfaces of LAB is primarily intended to use in mucosal vaccines. The transmembrane protein pgsA is one of the poly-cglutamate synthetase complexes of Bacillus subtilis [17, 24, 25] , which is a well-studied anchor protein is able to fuse the target protein to its C terminus and stabilize the complex by anchoring it in the cell membrane. Since sM2 is a highly conserved and promising target for a universal vaccine and CTA1 is strong mucosal adjuvant, in this study, we developed constructs using a consensus sM2 gene reconstituted from the analysis of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2 influenza viruses (no trans-membrane domain) with or without the fusion of CTA1. To achieve this, we used a novel expression vector that can express a pgsA gene product as an anchoring matrix. Our target antigens, sM2 and CTA1, were displayed on the surface of Lactobacillus casei, and the oral or intranasal administration of recombinant L. casei induced systemic and mucosal immune responses that have the potential to protect against the lethal challenges of divergent influenza subtypes.
A total of 672 female BALB/c mice (5 weeks old) were purchased from Samtako (Seoul, Korea) and housed in ventilated cages. The mice were managed with pelleted feed and tap water ad libitum, maintained in a specific-pathogen-free environment and all efforts were made to minimize suffering following approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of of Bioleaders Corporation, Daejeon, South Korea, protocol number: BSL-ABLS-13-002. Immunizations of animal were conducted in biosafety level (BSL)-2 laboratory facilities. Mice were divided into 6 experimental sets, each consisting of 2 subsets: 1 for oral and 1 for intranasal administration which contained 4 groups each. Out of 6, 4 sets had 14 mice per group. One sets had 17 (3 mice for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry), and the last contained 11 mice per group (3 mice for CTL response).
Concentrations of recombinant L. casei were determined by colony forming units (CFU). In each subset, 2 groups received 10 10 CFU of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, and the remaining two groups received the same concentration of pKV-pgsA/L. casei or PBS in 100 ml orally via intragastric lavage at days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21 to 23. Similarly, 10 9 CFU of recombinant cells were administered in 20 ml suspensions into the nostrils of lightly anesthetized mice on days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21. Blood samples were collected from the retro-orbital plexus at days 21, 14 and 28; sera were separated by centrifugation for 5 minutes at 12,0006g and stored at 220uC until analysis. At day 28, 3 mice in each group were randomly sacrificed to collect IgA sample from lungs and intestine and stored at 270uC until analysis. Spleens were collected aseptically at day 28 for the analysis of the CTL response randomly from 3 mice of one set. The rest of the mice from the same set were maintained for 6 months from the date of the last boosting to measure the long-lasting immune responses and protection efficacy.
The avian influenza viruses A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/ Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) used in this study were kindly provided by Dr. Young-Ki Choi (College of Medicine and Medical Research Institute, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea). All viruses were propagated in the allantoic fluid of 10-day-old chicken embryos, and 50% mouse lethal doses (MLD 50 ) were determined in 8-week-old naive BALB/ c mice. Ether narcosis-anesthetized mice were intranasally infected with 10 times the MLD 50 of challenge viruses in 20 ml of PBS. Six mice in each group were sacrificed on 3 and 5 dpi to check virus titer in lungs and other 5 mice remained in each group have been used for survival. Mice were monitored every alternate day at fixed time point for measuring the weight loss and survival. Mice were euthanized if moribund, i.e. weight loss, ruffled fur, shivering, tachypnea, respiratory distress, hypothermia and poorly responsive to external stimuli, remaining were considered as survival number. After final monitoring, all the survived mice were humanely euthanized using CO 2 inhalation for 5 minutes.
At 180 days after the final vaccination, mice from one set were challenged with H5N2 for measuring the long lasting immune responses. All challenge tests were conducted inside an approved BSL-3+ facility under appropriate conditions. Bacterial Strains and Cloning for the Construction of Recombinant Plasmid PgsA-sM2/L. casei and PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei In this study, E. coli JM83 was used for cloning and L. casei L525 was used for surface expression of the target protein. These bacteria were grown in LB and MRS media, respectively. The plasmid pKV-Pald-PgsA, harboring the pgsA genes of Bacillus subtilis, was used to construct the surface display plasmid, which was a kind gift from the Bioleaders Corporation (Daejeon, South Korea). A gene encoding the consensus sequence of M2 spanning the residues of the extracellular and cytoplasmic domains without the transmembrane domain of influenza virus was generated. The consensus sequences were created based on the most common amino acids in each position of the alignment of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2; then, they were synthesized and used as templates for the construction of the plasmids pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei by cloning, as described previously [26, 27] . The sM2 gene was modified by adding a Kpn I site at the 59 terminal and Sal I at the 39 terminal for cloning. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed to amplify the gene using the primer pair 59-GGGGTACCTCATTATTAACA-39, and 59-ACGTCGACT-CATTATTCAAGTTCAATAATG AC-39. Similarly, a BamH I site at the 59 terminal and a Kpn I site at the 39 terminal end were added to the CTA1 gene using primers 59-CGGGATCCAAT-GATGATAAGTTATAT-39 and 59-GGGT ACCCGAT-GATCTTGGAGC ATT-39. The modified genes were ligated into the T Easy Vector (Invitrogen, Seoul, Korea). Genes were then digested with Kpn I-Sal I for sM2 and BamH I-Kpn I for CTA1. The digested sM2 was ligated to the plasmid vector pKV-pgsA for the construction of pKV-pgsA-sM2. Similarly, CTA1 was ligated for the construction of pKV-pgsA-CTA1-sM2. The ligated products were transformed into E. coli JM83 competent cells, as previously described, using an electroporation method [17] . The profiles of the recombinant plasmids were confirmed by restriction endonuclease digestion and DNA sequencing (Solgent, Seoul, Korea). After confirmation, the plasmids were transformed into L. casei L525 by electroporation and named pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei.
The recombinant L. casei containing pgsA, pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 genes were grown at 30uC for 48 hours. Cells were harvested by centrifugation at 6,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, followed by washing two times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Bacterial lyses were performed by sonication and centrifuged at 12,0006g for 20 minutes at 4uC. Cell wall and cytoplasmic fractions were separated by centrifugation at 25,0006g at 4uC for 2 hours. Pellets (cell wall) were resuspended in 100 ml of 1% sarcosol containing 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) as a protease inhibitor. Fractions were analyzed by western blotting, as described previously. For the immune detection of fusion proteins, the membranes were probed with rabbit anti-cholera toxin (1:2000, Abcam, UK), rabbit anti-pgsA (1:1000) and rabbit anti-M2 (1:1000) antibodies. The rabbit anti-pgsA and rabbit anti-M2 antibodies used in this experiment were generated by the i.m. inoculation of KLH-conjugated pgsA or M2 peptide in rabbit, respectively, two times at 2 weeks-interval. The membranes were reacted with a 1:10,000 dilution of anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (IgG HRP). Finally, the target proteins were detected using the WEST-ZOL plus Western Blot Detection System (iNtRON Biotechnology, Gyeonggi-do, Korea) and visualized by enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) [17, 26, 28] .
To investigate the expression of sM2 or CTA1-sM2 on the surface of L. casei, recombinant L. casei were grown in 30uC for 48 hours in the MRS broth. Bacteria were harvested by centrifugation at 5,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, washed three times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline containing 0.01% Tween-20 (PBST) and probed with polyclonal rabbit anti-M2 or rabbit anti-CT antibody overnight. Following another washing, the cells were treated with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)conjugated anti-rabbit IgG antibodies (Burlingame, CA, USA) for 2 hours. Finally, 10,000 cells were analyzed by flow cytometry (Becton Dickinson, Oxnard, CA, USA). For the immunofluorescence, cells were prepared under the same condition described for the flow cytometry. The pgsA/L. casei was used as a negative control and Immunofluoresence analysis was examined using a Carl Zeiss Axioskop 2 fluorescence microscope.
ELISA Antibody titers were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using serum or mucosal samples from vaccinated mice. First, 96-well immunosorbent plates (Nunc) were incubated with 300 ng/well purified sM2 or CTA1 proteins at 4uC overnight. The recombinant sM2 and CTA1 proteins used in this study were purified from E. coli. Next, the wells were blocked with 10% skim milk for 2 hours in RT, washed five times with PBST, treated with diluted serum samples (1:200) in triplicate for detecting IgG and undiluted tissue homogenized supernatant for detecting local IgA and incubated for 2 hours at 37uC. After washing three times, goat anti-mouse IgG HRP (1:1000, sigma) or anti-mouse IgA was added to each well and incubated for an additional 2 hours at 37uC. Following another round of washing, the plates were reacted with the substrate solution containing tetramethylbenzidine and H 2 O 2 and allowed to precede the reaction for 10 minutes. After adding the stop solution 2N-H 2 SO 4 , the optical density (OD) was measured at 450 nm using an ELISA autoreader (Molecular devices).
The development and counting of cytokines were performed by ELISPOTs, as described previously [31, 32] . Briefly, the day before the isolation of splenocytes, ELISPOT 96-well plates were coated with monoclonal anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 capture antibodies (5 mg/ml) in PBS and incubated at 4uC overnight. The plates were washed with PBS, and 200 ml/well of blocking solution containing complete RPMI 1640 medium and 10% fetal bovine serum, was added (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and incubated for 2 hours in RT. Spleens from the vaccinated mice were isolated aseptically and added at 5610 4 cells/well in media containing sM2 protein, M2 peptide (SLLTEVETPTRNGWECKCSD) (1 mg/well), only medium (negative control), or 5 mg/ml phytohemagglutinin (positive control, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). After adding cells and stimulators, the plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37uC with 5% CO 2 . The plates were sequentially treated with biotinylated anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 antibodies, streptavidinhorseradish peroxidase, and substrate solution. Finally, the spots were counted using an ImmunoScan Entry analyzer (Cellular Technology, Shaker Heights, USA).
The lungs were collected aseptically, and virus titers were determined by 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID 50 ), as described previously [33] . Briefly, lung tissues were homogenized in 500 ml of PBS containing antibiotics (penicillin, and streptomycin) and antimycotics (Fungizone) compounds (Gibco, Grand Island, NY, USA). Mechanically homogenized lung samples were centrifuged (15 minutes, 12,0006g and 4uC) to remove the cellular debris before their storage at 280uC. MDCK cells were inoculated with a 10-fold serially diluted sample and incubated at 37uC in a humid atmosphere of 5% CO 2 for an hour. After absorption, the media was removed, and overlay medium containing L-1-tosylamido-2-phenylethyl chloromethyl ketone (TPCK) trypsin (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rockford, USA) was added to the infected cells and incubated for 72 hours. Viral cytopathic effects were observed daily, and the titers were determined by the HA test. The viral titer of each sample was expressed as 50% tissue infected doses using the Reed-Muench method [34] .
For histopathology, lung tissues were collected at 5 dpi from ether narcosis-anesthetized mice. Tissues were immediately fixed in 10% formalin containing neutral buffer, embedded in paraffin wax, sectioned at 4-6 mm thickness using a microtome machine, mounted onto slides, and stained with eosin stain. Histopathological changes were examined by light microscopy, as previously described [29, 30, 35] . Furthermore, slides were stained using an immunoperoxidase method with an antibody (rabbit anti-M2, 1:500) directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus. A Goat-anti-rabbit IgG HRP (1:2000, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) was used as the secondary antibody for the detection of virus infected cells in respective tissues [57] .
Data are presented as the means 6 standard deviations (S.D.) and are representative of at least three independent experiments. Differences between groups were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), and means were compared by Student's t-test. P-values less than 0.05 were regarded as significant. Results for percent initial body weight were also compared by using Student's t test.
Comparison of survival was done by log-rank test using GraphPad Prism 6 version.
The pgsA-expressing vector was used to construct plasmids containing the highly conserved consensus sM2 gene, with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2) or without (pgsA-sM2) the cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1, Fig. 1A ). Plasmids were transformed into L. casei cells. The expression levels of pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were monitored by immunoblotting using anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies (data not shown).
To determine the cellular localization of the sM2 and CTA1 proteins expressed on the surface of L. casei via the cell wall anchor protein pgsA, membrane and cytoplasmic fractions were subjected to western blot analysis. As expected, both pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins were detected by anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies in the membrane, not in cytoplasmic fractions (Fig. 1B, lane 2, 3 and 4) . Immunoreactions were performed with anti-pgsA, and bands representing the size of the fused proteins pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were detected, while during the reactions with anti-M2 or anti-CT antibodies, no other bands were detected (Fig. 1B, lane 3 and 4) . This finding may have resulted from the degradation that occurs during the membrane fractionation procedure.
Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and immunofluorescence labeling of the cells were used to verify the localization of the fusion pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 protein on the surface of L. casei. Flow cytometric analysis using rabbit anti-M2 and anti-CT antibodies revealed increase level of fluorescence intensity of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells, compared to that of control L. casei cells (Fig. 1C ). Immunofluorescence microscopy also showed recombinant bacteria harboring pgsA-sM2 or pgsA-CTA1-sM2 that immunostained positive for sM2 and CTA1, but this was not found in control cells. These results demonstrated that recombinant L. casei could efficiently display the sM2 and CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins on the surface, using pgsA as a membrane anchor protein.
Immune Responses Induced by Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface Displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2
Preliminary experiment was conducted to determine the doses and schedule of pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei vaccine candidate on influenza virus protection (data not shown). To characterize the immunogenicity of the L. casei surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1conjugated sM2, BALB/c mice were immunized nasally (10 9 cells/20 ml dose) or orally (10 10 cells/100 ml dose) with recombinant live pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei bacteria. As a negative control, mice were immunized with L. casei harboring the parental plasmid pKV-pgsA (pgsA/L. casei) and PBS. Serum samples were collected at 0, 14 and 28 days and analyzed by ELISA, using sM2 and CTA1 proteins (purified from E. coli) as a coating antigen. After the first series of immunization, comparatively low levels of serum IgG were detected both in the i.n. and orally immunized group. However, high antibody levels were detected shortly after the second series of immunization, and the CTA1-conjugated sM2 group induced serum IgG at significant level, compared to sM2-only group and negative controls ( Fig. 2A and B) . Although the conjugation of CTA1 with sM2 was expected to have an adjuvant function only, a significant level of anti-CTA1 antibodies was detected in both the nasal and oral vaccinations ( Fig. 2A and B right panel) . In comparison with the oral group, the nasally immunized group showed higher levels of serum IgG specific to both sM2 and CTA1.
To assess the mucosal immune responses, the local IgA levels were determined by ELISA. Lung and intestinal tissues were collected at day 28 of immunization and examined using sM2 protein as a coating antigen. In both routes of vaccination, pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced significantly increased levels of sM2specific mucosal IgA compared to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups. However, as expected, higher levels of antibody titers were detected at the site of inoculation than at the remote site. A similar pattern of antibody responses was observed for both routes of immunization, in which the pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei groups dominated ( Fig. 2C and D) . These data demonstrated that cholera toxin subunit A1-conjugated sM2 resulted in significant enhancements to the sM2-specific IgG and mucosal IgA levels compared with sM2 alone or with controls immunized with pgsA/ L. casei or PBS.
Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2 Stimulated M2-specific Cellular Immune Response
To determine whether mucosal vaccination with L. casei surfacedisplayed sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 could induce cellular immunity, IFN-c and IL-4 ELISPOT were performed. Splenocytes from vaccinated mice were stimulated with 10 mg/ml of recombinant sM2 protein or M2 peptide, and the cytokine ELISPOTs were developed. The spots were counted to measure the differences in the CTL responses between the groups. Cells from the mice immunized i.n. with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed significant levels of IFN-c in response to stimulation with sM2 protein and M2 peptide (Fig. 3A) . Similarly, we observed that i.n. administered groups both for pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed detectable levels of IL-4 secreting splenocytes following stimulation with either sM2 protein or M2 peptide (Fig. 3B) . IFN-c and IL-4 secreting cells were also observed in mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 3C ) although their levels were lower than i.n. group and were not significant. Control group immunized with pgsA/L. casei showed background spot level for both in intranasal and oral groups. These findings indicate that highly conserved sM2 can induce M2-specific IFN-c and IL-4 secreting T cell responses, while mucosal delivery through L. casei and CTA1 conjugation with sM2 enhanced the cell mediated immunity, which may contribute to broadening the protective immunity.
M2 is known as a potential target for the development of broad spectrum influenza vaccine with minimum variability [36, 37] . To confirm the variability of sM2 sequences of the challenged viruses used in this study, we compared the sM2 of influenza subtypes available from U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) with our consensus sM2 sequence particularly the whole conserved ecto and some portion of cytoplasmic domain (CD) although entire CD was included in vaccine construct (Table 1) . We found that, viruses used in this study contain 0-8 mismatched amino acids among the amino acids of sM2 compared in this study. To evaluate the efficacy of the sM2 vaccine, week after the final immunization, mice were challenged i.n. with the 10 MLD 50 of A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2) influenza virus subtypes that was homologous to the consensus sM2 sequence. Mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/ L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed 40 and 60% protection respectively. Similarly, i.n. immunization groups conferred 40 and 80%, against the lethal infection with highly virulent H5N2 virus. In contrast, none of the unimmunized mice survived after lethal infection ( Fig. 4A and B, right panel) . Morbidity was increased in the mice immunized via oral route, whereas mice that received i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost ,20% of their initial body weight and started recovering by 9 day post infection (dpi) and had completely recovered by day 13 (Fig. 4A and B, left panel) .
We next evaluated the protection efficiency of sM2 vaccine candidate against A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), which contains 8 mismatched amino acids relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Sets of vaccinated mice were challenged with 10 MLD 50 of the H1N1 virus. As shown in figure 4C and D, mice immunized by the The mice were grouped as mentioned in materials and methods and received oral or nasal administrations, according to the schedule. Arrows indicated the immunization routes and periods of pgsA/L. casei, pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells. Sera were collected at days 0, 14 and 28; samples from the lungs and intestines were collected at day 28 after immunization. A week after the final immunization, spleens were excised from 3 mice in each group, with one set for CTL analysis. Two or 24 weeks after the last immunization, all mice were challenged with a lethal dose of influenza subtypes through intranasal route and monitored for 13 days. On days 3 and 5 post infection, the lungs were excised from 3 mice in each group to determine the virus titer. On 5 dpi, the mice from one set were sacrificed for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g001 CTA1-sM2 Induces Protective Immunity to Pathogenic Influenza A Viruses PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org i.n route exhibited a higher level of protection than the orally immunized groups, and mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei showed a significantly higher level of protection compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, right panel) . Unimmunized mice lost up to 40% of their body weight and died by 9 dpi. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost approximately 10% of their body weight, whereas mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei lost .20% of their initial body weight by 9 dpi and recovered more slowly than mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, left panel) .
Another set of vaccinated mice were infected with A/Chicken/ Korea/116/2004(H9N2) to check the range of protection ability of sM2 vaccine induced immune responses. The sM2 sequence of H9N2 contains 2 mismatched relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. The mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight losses and gradual recovery compared to those of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and the unimmunized mice for both the i.n and oral routes (Fig. 4E and F left panel) . None of the unimmunized mice survived, whereas 100% and 80% of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei via the i.n. and oral routes survived, respectively. The survival rates of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei were 80% and 60% for the i.n. and oral routes, respectively ( Fig. 4E and F, right panel) .
The breadth of protection of the sM2 vaccine against divergent influenza subtypes was also evaluated. Set of immunized mice were challenged with high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A/ EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), which contains 2 amino acid mismatches relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Mice immunized via the i.n. and oral routes with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed higher protection efficacies, 80% and 60%, respectively, compared with mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei, for which the rates were 60% and 20%, respectively ( Fig. 4G and H, right panel) . Regarding morbidity, mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed lower morbidity than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4G and H, left panel) . One more set of vaccinated mice were challenged with the A/Aquatic bird/ Korea/W44/2005 (H7N3) virus, which contains 1 mismatch relative to the consensus sM2 sequence, and the body weight and survival were observed for 13 dpi. As shown in figure 4I and J, unimmunized mice lost as much as 30% of their body weight than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4I and J, left panel) . Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei through the i.n route showed significantly higher level of protection against the H7N3 influenza virus than the other groups ( Fig. 4I and J, right panel) . Taken together, the results indicate that i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced immune responses that conferred significant levels of protection against divergent subtypes of influenza viruses containing mismatched amino acids ranging from 0 to 8 of the consensus sM2, regardless of whether it was complete or partial.
Virus titers in the lungs of challenged mice were measured to estimate replication at 3 and 5 dpi. Mice were immunized via the i.n and oral routes with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei and challenged with the H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 or H7N3 influenza subtypes. On 3 and 5 dpi, 3 mice were sacrificed randomly from each group, and their lung virus titers were measured using the TCID 50 method. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei had lower titers at 3 dpi and had significantly reduced viral replication at 5 dpi compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or the control groups at the same time ( Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced viral titers in the lungs were observed in groups of mice immunized via the i.n route relative to the mice immunized via the oral route, particularly at day 3 post infections (Fig. 5) . These reduced titers may be due to routes of vaccination and challenge being the same, and the titers correlated with the survival results for lethal infections with H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 and H7N3. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the consensus sM2 protein fused with CTA1 afforded better protection than sM2, and the i.n route was more potent than the oral route of immunization with regard to protection against a lethal challenge of divergent influenza subtypes.
Histopathology and immunohistochemistry were performed to corroborate the lung virus titer findings. At 5 dpi, lungs were randomly collected from each group of one set, fixed and stained with eosin before being examined under a light microscope. As shown in figure 5K , clear signs of profound pulmonary inflammation were observed in the lungs of mice treated with PBS or pgsA/L. casei for both the oral and i.n routes of administration, whereas the lungs of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed no remarkable pulmonary inflammation compare to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei-treated mice (Fig. 5K, middle and left panel) . For immunohistochemistry, immunoperoxidase method with an antibody directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus was used for the detection of virus infected cells in the respective tissues. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. As shown in figure 5K, at 5 days p.i., numerous virusinfected cells were detected in control or pgsA-sM2/L. casei vaccinated mice, whereas highly reduced number of antigen positive cells were found in the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, both in i.n. and orally immunized group (Fig. 5K right panel) . These results indicate that mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei developed immune responses that are strong enough to inhibit virus replication, which promotes the survival of mice after a lethal infection by influenza A.
The PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei Vaccination Induced Longlasting Cross Protection
The duration of protection is an important criterion for a potential vaccine. Thus, the longevity of the immunity induced by sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 were investigated by detecting serum IgG and mucosal IgA by ELISA. Significantly increase levels of sM2-specific serum IgG as well as lung and intestinal IgA were observed 180 days after vaccination ( Fig. 6A and C) compare to PBS and pgsA/L. casei groups. Mice were challenged with A/ Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), and the body weight changes and survival were monitored until 13 dpi. The unimmunized mice showed .30% body weight loss (Fig. 6B and D left panel) and died by day 9 post infection in both the oral and i.n. groups. In contrast, the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight loss, which was recovered by 13 dpi; 80% survived in the i.n. immunized group (Fig. 6B right panel) , and 60% survived in the orally immunized group (Fig. 6D right panel) . This result indicates that the CTA1conjugated sM2 mucosal vaccine conferred protection against a lethal infection 6 months after the final immunization.
The mucosal immune system is the first immunological barrier against the pathogens that invade the body via the mucosal surface. Thus, the induction of mucosal immunity is necessary to ensure protection against multiple subtypes of influenza A virus. A respiratory virus, influenza A is responsible for annual seasonal epidemics worldwide and, occasionally, pandemics, which are caused by emerging novel subtypes/strains derived through reassortment with avian or porcine viruses. Current influenza vaccines provide strain-specific protection only. Thus, it is crucial to establish a broadly cross-protective influenza vaccine. Antigens that are well conserved among influenza A viruses are considered promising targets for the induction of cross-protection against these different subtypes. However, the goal should be the development of a first line of defense by effectively eliminating pathogens at the mucosal surface. Influenza matrix protein-2 (M2) is relatively well conserved among the influenza subtypes and can be considered a promising influenza vaccine antigen [30] . It consists of the following three structural domains: a 24-amino-acid extracellular domain, a 19-amino-acid transmembrane domain, and a 54-amino-acid cytoplasmic tail domain [39, 40] . The extracellular and cytoplasmic domains, which are well conserved among influenza viruses and play an important role in viral assembly and morphogenesis, were used in this study. Here, we developed sM2 consensus derived from the analysis of sequences of H5N1, H1N1 and H9N2 subtypes in the database. Considering the previous findings that extracellular domain particularly (aa, 1-13) is highly conserved among the influenza virus subtypes and recognized as epitope for the induction of monoclonal antibodies, which could protect influenza virus infection [56] , sM2 backbone sequence from the H5N1 virus were used. For the possible homology among other subtypes we changed at the position of 14 (E-G) and 18 (R-K) and kept unchanged the conserved epitope (aa, 1-13). As shown in sequence alignment, sM2 of consensus sequence has 0-8 mismatches among the subtypes used in this study (Table 1) .
Moreover, the incorporation of an adjuvant is considered essential to boost the interaction of the vaccine with the mucosal immune system [41] . Various adjuvants, such as liposomes, nanoparticles, and immunostimulating complexes (ISCOMs), have been studied and were found to improve the immune response [42] , but their efficacies were not optimal. Despite its potential as a mucosal adjuvant [43] , the use of cholera toxin (CT) in vaccines is limited by its innate toxicity. Thus, the toxicity of CT would have to be separated from its adjuvanticity before it could be used as a vaccine adjuvant. Studies have shown that constructs consisting of M2e fused with cholera toxin subunit A1 along with a strong ADPribosylating agent and a dimer of the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus protein A vaccine elicited complete protection and reduced morbidity [6, 44] . CTA1 retains the adjuvant function of CT without its toxic side effects, such as reactogenicity at the site of its administration and binding to or accumulation in the nervous tissues [45] . Based on previous findings, it has been hypothesized that the consensus sM2 fragment, when fused with the potent mucosal adjuvant CTA1, may induce broad protective immunity against divergent subtypes of influenza virus. In this study, we used the whole 22-kDa CTA1 protein (an ADP ribosyltransferase), which consists of three distinct subdomains: CTA11 (residues 1 to 132), CTA12 (residues 133 to 161), and CTA13 (residues 162 to 192). It has been reported that CTA1 lacking CTB has strong adjuvant activities without any toxicity. CTA1 enhances the IgA and IgG antibody responses, as well as CTL activity [47] .
For the development of a universal mucosal influenza vaccine with a conserved sM2 peptide and potent adjuvant CTA1, recombinant L. casei displaying sM2 fused with or without CTA1
The lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed clear alveoli without inflammatory cell infiltration, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control mice, both of which revealed features of severe pneumonitis (middle and left panel). Reduced number of viral antigen were detected in lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control revealed features of severe pneumonitis with increase virus antigen (right panel). Micrographs are representative for each treatment group at a magnification of 200X. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. In lung titers, bars denote mean 6 S.D. The asterisk indicates a significant difference between pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei and other groups (*P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g005 were constructed for mucosal delivery by the widely used live vaccine vehicle LAB [38] . The pgsA gene used in this study is an anchor for display on the surface of LAB which is derived from the pgsBCA enzyme complex of Bacillus subtilis and consists of transmembrane domain near its N-terminus with the domain located on the outside of the cell membrane. Thus, pgsA is able to cross the cell wall and display the heterologous protein fused to its C-terminus [17] .
The developed vaccines were tested through two major routes. We found that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei was able to induce a significantly higher level of sM2-specific serum IgG ( Fig. 2A and B ) and mucosal IgA (Fig. 2C and D) compared to pgsA-sM2/L. casei, and conferring protection against divergent influenza subtypes of both phylogenetic group 1 (H1, H5, H9) and group 2 (H7) [46] (Fig. 4) . This study also revealed that i.n. administration was superior to the oral route of vaccination, which is consistent with other observations [48] . There may be two possible reasons to explain this phenomenon. First, the challenge route is the same as that of the vaccination; specific mucosal IgA can prevent viral colonization in the respiratory tract. Second, the volume of the inocula was 5 times lower than that for oral inoculation, which may have allowed the concentrated form of the antigen to be presented to immune cells. Because greater levels of serum IgG and mucosal IgA were detected in intranasally immunized mice than in those immunized orally (Fig. 2) , an alternative explanation could be that the antigens are processed and/or presented differently to immune cells in the two mucosal compartments. Importantly, our study demonstrated for the first time that mucosal immunization with the LAB surface-displayed CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate induced broad protection against challenge with divergent influenza subtypes.
However, the mechanism by which Abs against sM2 mediated this broad protection is not fully understood. Previous studies have demonstrated that Abs to the N-terminus of M2e, particularly positions 1-10, inhibited the replication of the influenza A virus [49, 50] . Other studies revealed that anti-M2e IgG-mediated cellular cytotoxicity or phagocytosis can induce the removal of infected cells before progeny virus budding and spread [54, 55] which is supporting our findings of lung virus titer and immunohistochemistry data detected at 5 dpi in our challenge experiments. Therefore, in this study, combination of those responses and Abs to the N-terminus of the sM2 sequence which is conserved among the challenge viruses (Table 1 ) may protect the divergent influenza subtypes after mucosal immunization with the recombinant LAB CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate. Moreover, the cellular immune response plays an important role in controlling viral replication. We examined the Th1-type (IFN-c) and Th2-type (IL-4) cytokine responses by the ELISPOT assay. Significantly higher levels of IFN-c were detected in response to stimulation with both the sM2 protein and M2 peptide in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei compared to the levels in mice in the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups ( Fig. 3A and C) . Similarly, substantially high levels of IL-4 were observed in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei upon stimulation with the sM2 protein and M2 peptide ( Fig. 3B and D) . These results further support the findings that the antibodies and cell-mediated cytotoxicity were specific to the M2 antigen and that their anti-viral activities were induced by monomeric M2, three copies of M2 fused with ASP-1 [34, 51, 52] . Together, these results indicate that sM2 adjuvanted with fused CTA1 induced immune responses in mice, which protected them from divergent influenza subtypes. In this regard, our results have significance for the use of CTA1, which has adjuvant function, in vaccine candidates.
As clinical protection is not the only parameter by which vaccine performance is assessed, we evaluated the immunogenicity of the recombinant LAB vaccine on the basis of other parameters, such as the reduction of pathological lesions and virus shedding. In this study, low titers of the challenge virus were titrated from the lungs after vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, whereas challenge virus could be detected at higher titers in the mock mice and those vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced gross and histopathological lesions consistent with viral infection are the primary parameters indicative of influenza vaccine efficacy. Here, we demonstrated that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei remarkably limited the severity of the damage by inhibiting viral replication and the accumulation of inflammatory cells and virus antigen in the lung alveolar tissues, relative to the severity in the unimmunized mice and the mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5K) .
Our study further demonstrated, for the first time, that recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-sM2 induced long-lasting immunity and conferred protection against lethal infections by influenza, even at 6 months after the final vaccination (Fig. 6) , which is important for any successful vaccine. Similar results were observed in previous studies, in which M2 VLP conferred longterm immunity and cross protection and the antibodies in the sera and mucosal sites were long lived [53, 54] .
In conclusion, our findings revealed that the mucosal immunization of mice with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated sM2 can induce systemic and local, as well as cellmediated, immune responses against divergent influenza virus subtypes. Thus, the recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated consensus sM2 mucosal vaccine may be a promising vaccine candidate for influenza pandemic preparedness. | Name some adjuvants that have been used with an influenza vaccine. | {
"answer_start": [
37056
],
"text": [
"liposomes, nanoparticles, and immunostimulating complexes (ISCOMs)"
]
} | false |
5,191 | Mucosal Vaccination with Recombinant Lactobacillus casei-Displayed CTA1-Conjugated Consensus Matrix Protein-2 (sM2) Induces Broad Protection against Divergent Influenza Subtypes in BALB/c Mice
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979752/
SHA: efaa556b484fbcd9cc34832ffac53ef3e834e9c0
Authors: Chowdhury, Mohammed Y. E.; Li, Rui; Kim, Jae-Hoon; Park, Min-Eun; Kim, Tae-Hwan; Pathinayake, Prabuddha; Weeratunga, Prasanna; Song, Man Ki; Son, Hwa-Young; Hong, Seung-Pyo; Sung, Moon-Hee; Lee, Jong-Soo; Kim, Chul-Joong
Date: 2014-04-08
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094051
License: cc-by
Abstract: To develop a safe and effective mucosal vaccine against pathogenic influenza viruses, we constructed recombinant Lactobacillus casei strains that express conserved matrix protein 2 with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei) or without (pgsA-sM2/L. casei) cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) on the surface. The surface localization of the fusion protein was verified by cellular fractionation analyses, flow cytometry and immunofluorescence microscopy. Oral and nasal inoculations of recombinant L. casei into mice resulted in high levels of serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) and mucosal IgA. However, the conjugation of cholera toxin subunit A1 induced more potent mucosal, humoral and cell-mediated immune responses. In a challenge test with 10 MLD(50) of A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird /Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) viruses, the recombinant pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei provided better protection against lethal challenges than pgsA-sM2/L. casei, pgsA/L. casei and PBS in mice. These results indicate that mucosal immunization with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-conjugated sM2 protein on its surface is an effective means of eliciting protective immune responses against diverse influenza subtypes.
Text: Vaccination remains most economical and effective means against respiratory diseases caused by influenza viruses [1] . Based on the circulating viruses in the population, trivalent vaccine strains have been developed and are used for the influenza virus protection [2] . The most acceptable current available strategy is the intramuscular administration of inactivated vaccines produced by egg-based manufacturing systems which while effective, are hampered by limited capacity and flexibility [3] . However, vaccine strains must be frequently adapted to match the circulating viruses throughout the world [4] . In addition, the levels of antibody induced by the inactivated vaccine have been observed to decrease by 75% over an 8-month period [2, 5] . Therefore, alternative strategies for developing broadly cross-protective, safe and effective vaccines against influenza viral infections are of prominent importance.
Matrix protein 2 (M2) is highly conserved among influenza A virus strains, indicating that M2 is an attractive target for developing a universal vaccine [6] . In previous studies, various constructs of the M2 vaccine have been developed and tested, including recombinant Escherichia coli (E. coli) expressing M2 fusion protein, adenoviral vectors expressing the M2 protein, plasmid DNA encoding M2 [7] [8] [9] and peptides encoding M2e [11] , each of which was able to elicit protective immune responses in mice. However, the drawback of these M2-based vaccines is their low immunogenicity; additionally, most of them would require intramuscular injections. Therefore, many strategies have been applied focusing on increasing the immunogenicity of M2-based vaccines, for example, fusion of M2 with different carrier molecules like human papilloma virus L protein [12] , keyhole limpet hemocyanin [10] and flagellin [13] . Furthermore, vaccinations with different adjuvants and routes of administration have been applied to evaluate their protection against divergent strains of influenza viruses. Mice immunized mucosally with an M2 or virus like particles (VLPs) adjuvanted with cholera toxin (CT) demonstrated better protection compared to mice subjected to parenteral immunization [14, 15] . However, due to the adverse effects of CT in humans, investigators have attempted to identify nontoxic subunits with adjuvanticity by removing either subunit A or subunit B [16] . E. coli expressing cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) fused with the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus showed the adjuvant effects without any reactogenicity of the A1 subunit in the mucosal vaccine [6] . Although, chemical or genetic conjugation of M2 may not present M2 in its native tetrameric form, extracellularly accessible antigens expressed on the surfaces of bacteria are better recognized by the immune system than those that are intracellular [17] . Thus, choice of delivery vehicle is also an important concern for potential mucosal vaccines.
Recently, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) presenting influenza virus antigens have been studied [3, 18, 19] . For mucosal immunization, LAB is a more attractive delivery system than other live vaccine vectors, such as Shigella, Salmonella, and Listeria [20, 21] . It is considered safe and exhibits an adjuvant-like effect on mucosal and systemic immunity [18, 22, 23] . Anchoring of the target protein to the cell surfaces of LAB is primarily intended to use in mucosal vaccines. The transmembrane protein pgsA is one of the poly-cglutamate synthetase complexes of Bacillus subtilis [17, 24, 25] , which is a well-studied anchor protein is able to fuse the target protein to its C terminus and stabilize the complex by anchoring it in the cell membrane. Since sM2 is a highly conserved and promising target for a universal vaccine and CTA1 is strong mucosal adjuvant, in this study, we developed constructs using a consensus sM2 gene reconstituted from the analysis of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2 influenza viruses (no trans-membrane domain) with or without the fusion of CTA1. To achieve this, we used a novel expression vector that can express a pgsA gene product as an anchoring matrix. Our target antigens, sM2 and CTA1, were displayed on the surface of Lactobacillus casei, and the oral or intranasal administration of recombinant L. casei induced systemic and mucosal immune responses that have the potential to protect against the lethal challenges of divergent influenza subtypes.
A total of 672 female BALB/c mice (5 weeks old) were purchased from Samtako (Seoul, Korea) and housed in ventilated cages. The mice were managed with pelleted feed and tap water ad libitum, maintained in a specific-pathogen-free environment and all efforts were made to minimize suffering following approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of of Bioleaders Corporation, Daejeon, South Korea, protocol number: BSL-ABLS-13-002. Immunizations of animal were conducted in biosafety level (BSL)-2 laboratory facilities. Mice were divided into 6 experimental sets, each consisting of 2 subsets: 1 for oral and 1 for intranasal administration which contained 4 groups each. Out of 6, 4 sets had 14 mice per group. One sets had 17 (3 mice for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry), and the last contained 11 mice per group (3 mice for CTL response).
Concentrations of recombinant L. casei were determined by colony forming units (CFU). In each subset, 2 groups received 10 10 CFU of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, and the remaining two groups received the same concentration of pKV-pgsA/L. casei or PBS in 100 ml orally via intragastric lavage at days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21 to 23. Similarly, 10 9 CFU of recombinant cells were administered in 20 ml suspensions into the nostrils of lightly anesthetized mice on days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21. Blood samples were collected from the retro-orbital plexus at days 21, 14 and 28; sera were separated by centrifugation for 5 minutes at 12,0006g and stored at 220uC until analysis. At day 28, 3 mice in each group were randomly sacrificed to collect IgA sample from lungs and intestine and stored at 270uC until analysis. Spleens were collected aseptically at day 28 for the analysis of the CTL response randomly from 3 mice of one set. The rest of the mice from the same set were maintained for 6 months from the date of the last boosting to measure the long-lasting immune responses and protection efficacy.
The avian influenza viruses A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/ Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) used in this study were kindly provided by Dr. Young-Ki Choi (College of Medicine and Medical Research Institute, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea). All viruses were propagated in the allantoic fluid of 10-day-old chicken embryos, and 50% mouse lethal doses (MLD 50 ) were determined in 8-week-old naive BALB/ c mice. Ether narcosis-anesthetized mice were intranasally infected with 10 times the MLD 50 of challenge viruses in 20 ml of PBS. Six mice in each group were sacrificed on 3 and 5 dpi to check virus titer in lungs and other 5 mice remained in each group have been used for survival. Mice were monitored every alternate day at fixed time point for measuring the weight loss and survival. Mice were euthanized if moribund, i.e. weight loss, ruffled fur, shivering, tachypnea, respiratory distress, hypothermia and poorly responsive to external stimuli, remaining were considered as survival number. After final monitoring, all the survived mice were humanely euthanized using CO 2 inhalation for 5 minutes.
At 180 days after the final vaccination, mice from one set were challenged with H5N2 for measuring the long lasting immune responses. All challenge tests were conducted inside an approved BSL-3+ facility under appropriate conditions. Bacterial Strains and Cloning for the Construction of Recombinant Plasmid PgsA-sM2/L. casei and PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei In this study, E. coli JM83 was used for cloning and L. casei L525 was used for surface expression of the target protein. These bacteria were grown in LB and MRS media, respectively. The plasmid pKV-Pald-PgsA, harboring the pgsA genes of Bacillus subtilis, was used to construct the surface display plasmid, which was a kind gift from the Bioleaders Corporation (Daejeon, South Korea). A gene encoding the consensus sequence of M2 spanning the residues of the extracellular and cytoplasmic domains without the transmembrane domain of influenza virus was generated. The consensus sequences were created based on the most common amino acids in each position of the alignment of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2; then, they were synthesized and used as templates for the construction of the plasmids pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei by cloning, as described previously [26, 27] . The sM2 gene was modified by adding a Kpn I site at the 59 terminal and Sal I at the 39 terminal for cloning. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed to amplify the gene using the primer pair 59-GGGGTACCTCATTATTAACA-39, and 59-ACGTCGACT-CATTATTCAAGTTCAATAATG AC-39. Similarly, a BamH I site at the 59 terminal and a Kpn I site at the 39 terminal end were added to the CTA1 gene using primers 59-CGGGATCCAAT-GATGATAAGTTATAT-39 and 59-GGGT ACCCGAT-GATCTTGGAGC ATT-39. The modified genes were ligated into the T Easy Vector (Invitrogen, Seoul, Korea). Genes were then digested with Kpn I-Sal I for sM2 and BamH I-Kpn I for CTA1. The digested sM2 was ligated to the plasmid vector pKV-pgsA for the construction of pKV-pgsA-sM2. Similarly, CTA1 was ligated for the construction of pKV-pgsA-CTA1-sM2. The ligated products were transformed into E. coli JM83 competent cells, as previously described, using an electroporation method [17] . The profiles of the recombinant plasmids were confirmed by restriction endonuclease digestion and DNA sequencing (Solgent, Seoul, Korea). After confirmation, the plasmids were transformed into L. casei L525 by electroporation and named pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei.
The recombinant L. casei containing pgsA, pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 genes were grown at 30uC for 48 hours. Cells were harvested by centrifugation at 6,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, followed by washing two times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Bacterial lyses were performed by sonication and centrifuged at 12,0006g for 20 minutes at 4uC. Cell wall and cytoplasmic fractions were separated by centrifugation at 25,0006g at 4uC for 2 hours. Pellets (cell wall) were resuspended in 100 ml of 1% sarcosol containing 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) as a protease inhibitor. Fractions were analyzed by western blotting, as described previously. For the immune detection of fusion proteins, the membranes were probed with rabbit anti-cholera toxin (1:2000, Abcam, UK), rabbit anti-pgsA (1:1000) and rabbit anti-M2 (1:1000) antibodies. The rabbit anti-pgsA and rabbit anti-M2 antibodies used in this experiment were generated by the i.m. inoculation of KLH-conjugated pgsA or M2 peptide in rabbit, respectively, two times at 2 weeks-interval. The membranes were reacted with a 1:10,000 dilution of anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (IgG HRP). Finally, the target proteins were detected using the WEST-ZOL plus Western Blot Detection System (iNtRON Biotechnology, Gyeonggi-do, Korea) and visualized by enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) [17, 26, 28] .
To investigate the expression of sM2 or CTA1-sM2 on the surface of L. casei, recombinant L. casei were grown in 30uC for 48 hours in the MRS broth. Bacteria were harvested by centrifugation at 5,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, washed three times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline containing 0.01% Tween-20 (PBST) and probed with polyclonal rabbit anti-M2 or rabbit anti-CT antibody overnight. Following another washing, the cells were treated with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)conjugated anti-rabbit IgG antibodies (Burlingame, CA, USA) for 2 hours. Finally, 10,000 cells were analyzed by flow cytometry (Becton Dickinson, Oxnard, CA, USA). For the immunofluorescence, cells were prepared under the same condition described for the flow cytometry. The pgsA/L. casei was used as a negative control and Immunofluoresence analysis was examined using a Carl Zeiss Axioskop 2 fluorescence microscope.
ELISA Antibody titers were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using serum or mucosal samples from vaccinated mice. First, 96-well immunosorbent plates (Nunc) were incubated with 300 ng/well purified sM2 or CTA1 proteins at 4uC overnight. The recombinant sM2 and CTA1 proteins used in this study were purified from E. coli. Next, the wells were blocked with 10% skim milk for 2 hours in RT, washed five times with PBST, treated with diluted serum samples (1:200) in triplicate for detecting IgG and undiluted tissue homogenized supernatant for detecting local IgA and incubated for 2 hours at 37uC. After washing three times, goat anti-mouse IgG HRP (1:1000, sigma) or anti-mouse IgA was added to each well and incubated for an additional 2 hours at 37uC. Following another round of washing, the plates were reacted with the substrate solution containing tetramethylbenzidine and H 2 O 2 and allowed to precede the reaction for 10 minutes. After adding the stop solution 2N-H 2 SO 4 , the optical density (OD) was measured at 450 nm using an ELISA autoreader (Molecular devices).
The development and counting of cytokines were performed by ELISPOTs, as described previously [31, 32] . Briefly, the day before the isolation of splenocytes, ELISPOT 96-well plates were coated with monoclonal anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 capture antibodies (5 mg/ml) in PBS and incubated at 4uC overnight. The plates were washed with PBS, and 200 ml/well of blocking solution containing complete RPMI 1640 medium and 10% fetal bovine serum, was added (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and incubated for 2 hours in RT. Spleens from the vaccinated mice were isolated aseptically and added at 5610 4 cells/well in media containing sM2 protein, M2 peptide (SLLTEVETPTRNGWECKCSD) (1 mg/well), only medium (negative control), or 5 mg/ml phytohemagglutinin (positive control, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). After adding cells and stimulators, the plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37uC with 5% CO 2 . The plates were sequentially treated with biotinylated anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 antibodies, streptavidinhorseradish peroxidase, and substrate solution. Finally, the spots were counted using an ImmunoScan Entry analyzer (Cellular Technology, Shaker Heights, USA).
The lungs were collected aseptically, and virus titers were determined by 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID 50 ), as described previously [33] . Briefly, lung tissues were homogenized in 500 ml of PBS containing antibiotics (penicillin, and streptomycin) and antimycotics (Fungizone) compounds (Gibco, Grand Island, NY, USA). Mechanically homogenized lung samples were centrifuged (15 minutes, 12,0006g and 4uC) to remove the cellular debris before their storage at 280uC. MDCK cells were inoculated with a 10-fold serially diluted sample and incubated at 37uC in a humid atmosphere of 5% CO 2 for an hour. After absorption, the media was removed, and overlay medium containing L-1-tosylamido-2-phenylethyl chloromethyl ketone (TPCK) trypsin (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rockford, USA) was added to the infected cells and incubated for 72 hours. Viral cytopathic effects were observed daily, and the titers were determined by the HA test. The viral titer of each sample was expressed as 50% tissue infected doses using the Reed-Muench method [34] .
For histopathology, lung tissues were collected at 5 dpi from ether narcosis-anesthetized mice. Tissues were immediately fixed in 10% formalin containing neutral buffer, embedded in paraffin wax, sectioned at 4-6 mm thickness using a microtome machine, mounted onto slides, and stained with eosin stain. Histopathological changes were examined by light microscopy, as previously described [29, 30, 35] . Furthermore, slides were stained using an immunoperoxidase method with an antibody (rabbit anti-M2, 1:500) directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus. A Goat-anti-rabbit IgG HRP (1:2000, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) was used as the secondary antibody for the detection of virus infected cells in respective tissues [57] .
Data are presented as the means 6 standard deviations (S.D.) and are representative of at least three independent experiments. Differences between groups were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), and means were compared by Student's t-test. P-values less than 0.05 were regarded as significant. Results for percent initial body weight were also compared by using Student's t test.
Comparison of survival was done by log-rank test using GraphPad Prism 6 version.
The pgsA-expressing vector was used to construct plasmids containing the highly conserved consensus sM2 gene, with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2) or without (pgsA-sM2) the cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1, Fig. 1A ). Plasmids were transformed into L. casei cells. The expression levels of pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were monitored by immunoblotting using anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies (data not shown).
To determine the cellular localization of the sM2 and CTA1 proteins expressed on the surface of L. casei via the cell wall anchor protein pgsA, membrane and cytoplasmic fractions were subjected to western blot analysis. As expected, both pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins were detected by anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies in the membrane, not in cytoplasmic fractions (Fig. 1B, lane 2, 3 and 4) . Immunoreactions were performed with anti-pgsA, and bands representing the size of the fused proteins pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were detected, while during the reactions with anti-M2 or anti-CT antibodies, no other bands were detected (Fig. 1B, lane 3 and 4) . This finding may have resulted from the degradation that occurs during the membrane fractionation procedure.
Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and immunofluorescence labeling of the cells were used to verify the localization of the fusion pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 protein on the surface of L. casei. Flow cytometric analysis using rabbit anti-M2 and anti-CT antibodies revealed increase level of fluorescence intensity of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells, compared to that of control L. casei cells (Fig. 1C ). Immunofluorescence microscopy also showed recombinant bacteria harboring pgsA-sM2 or pgsA-CTA1-sM2 that immunostained positive for sM2 and CTA1, but this was not found in control cells. These results demonstrated that recombinant L. casei could efficiently display the sM2 and CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins on the surface, using pgsA as a membrane anchor protein.
Immune Responses Induced by Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface Displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2
Preliminary experiment was conducted to determine the doses and schedule of pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei vaccine candidate on influenza virus protection (data not shown). To characterize the immunogenicity of the L. casei surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1conjugated sM2, BALB/c mice were immunized nasally (10 9 cells/20 ml dose) or orally (10 10 cells/100 ml dose) with recombinant live pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei bacteria. As a negative control, mice were immunized with L. casei harboring the parental plasmid pKV-pgsA (pgsA/L. casei) and PBS. Serum samples were collected at 0, 14 and 28 days and analyzed by ELISA, using sM2 and CTA1 proteins (purified from E. coli) as a coating antigen. After the first series of immunization, comparatively low levels of serum IgG were detected both in the i.n. and orally immunized group. However, high antibody levels were detected shortly after the second series of immunization, and the CTA1-conjugated sM2 group induced serum IgG at significant level, compared to sM2-only group and negative controls ( Fig. 2A and B) . Although the conjugation of CTA1 with sM2 was expected to have an adjuvant function only, a significant level of anti-CTA1 antibodies was detected in both the nasal and oral vaccinations ( Fig. 2A and B right panel) . In comparison with the oral group, the nasally immunized group showed higher levels of serum IgG specific to both sM2 and CTA1.
To assess the mucosal immune responses, the local IgA levels were determined by ELISA. Lung and intestinal tissues were collected at day 28 of immunization and examined using sM2 protein as a coating antigen. In both routes of vaccination, pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced significantly increased levels of sM2specific mucosal IgA compared to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups. However, as expected, higher levels of antibody titers were detected at the site of inoculation than at the remote site. A similar pattern of antibody responses was observed for both routes of immunization, in which the pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei groups dominated ( Fig. 2C and D) . These data demonstrated that cholera toxin subunit A1-conjugated sM2 resulted in significant enhancements to the sM2-specific IgG and mucosal IgA levels compared with sM2 alone or with controls immunized with pgsA/ L. casei or PBS.
Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2 Stimulated M2-specific Cellular Immune Response
To determine whether mucosal vaccination with L. casei surfacedisplayed sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 could induce cellular immunity, IFN-c and IL-4 ELISPOT were performed. Splenocytes from vaccinated mice were stimulated with 10 mg/ml of recombinant sM2 protein or M2 peptide, and the cytokine ELISPOTs were developed. The spots were counted to measure the differences in the CTL responses between the groups. Cells from the mice immunized i.n. with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed significant levels of IFN-c in response to stimulation with sM2 protein and M2 peptide (Fig. 3A) . Similarly, we observed that i.n. administered groups both for pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed detectable levels of IL-4 secreting splenocytes following stimulation with either sM2 protein or M2 peptide (Fig. 3B) . IFN-c and IL-4 secreting cells were also observed in mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 3C ) although their levels were lower than i.n. group and were not significant. Control group immunized with pgsA/L. casei showed background spot level for both in intranasal and oral groups. These findings indicate that highly conserved sM2 can induce M2-specific IFN-c and IL-4 secreting T cell responses, while mucosal delivery through L. casei and CTA1 conjugation with sM2 enhanced the cell mediated immunity, which may contribute to broadening the protective immunity.
M2 is known as a potential target for the development of broad spectrum influenza vaccine with minimum variability [36, 37] . To confirm the variability of sM2 sequences of the challenged viruses used in this study, we compared the sM2 of influenza subtypes available from U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) with our consensus sM2 sequence particularly the whole conserved ecto and some portion of cytoplasmic domain (CD) although entire CD was included in vaccine construct (Table 1) . We found that, viruses used in this study contain 0-8 mismatched amino acids among the amino acids of sM2 compared in this study. To evaluate the efficacy of the sM2 vaccine, week after the final immunization, mice were challenged i.n. with the 10 MLD 50 of A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2) influenza virus subtypes that was homologous to the consensus sM2 sequence. Mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/ L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed 40 and 60% protection respectively. Similarly, i.n. immunization groups conferred 40 and 80%, against the lethal infection with highly virulent H5N2 virus. In contrast, none of the unimmunized mice survived after lethal infection ( Fig. 4A and B, right panel) . Morbidity was increased in the mice immunized via oral route, whereas mice that received i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost ,20% of their initial body weight and started recovering by 9 day post infection (dpi) and had completely recovered by day 13 (Fig. 4A and B, left panel) .
We next evaluated the protection efficiency of sM2 vaccine candidate against A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), which contains 8 mismatched amino acids relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Sets of vaccinated mice were challenged with 10 MLD 50 of the H1N1 virus. As shown in figure 4C and D, mice immunized by the The mice were grouped as mentioned in materials and methods and received oral or nasal administrations, according to the schedule. Arrows indicated the immunization routes and periods of pgsA/L. casei, pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells. Sera were collected at days 0, 14 and 28; samples from the lungs and intestines were collected at day 28 after immunization. A week after the final immunization, spleens were excised from 3 mice in each group, with one set for CTL analysis. Two or 24 weeks after the last immunization, all mice were challenged with a lethal dose of influenza subtypes through intranasal route and monitored for 13 days. On days 3 and 5 post infection, the lungs were excised from 3 mice in each group to determine the virus titer. On 5 dpi, the mice from one set were sacrificed for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g001 CTA1-sM2 Induces Protective Immunity to Pathogenic Influenza A Viruses PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org i.n route exhibited a higher level of protection than the orally immunized groups, and mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei showed a significantly higher level of protection compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, right panel) . Unimmunized mice lost up to 40% of their body weight and died by 9 dpi. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost approximately 10% of their body weight, whereas mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei lost .20% of their initial body weight by 9 dpi and recovered more slowly than mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, left panel) .
Another set of vaccinated mice were infected with A/Chicken/ Korea/116/2004(H9N2) to check the range of protection ability of sM2 vaccine induced immune responses. The sM2 sequence of H9N2 contains 2 mismatched relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. The mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight losses and gradual recovery compared to those of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and the unimmunized mice for both the i.n and oral routes (Fig. 4E and F left panel) . None of the unimmunized mice survived, whereas 100% and 80% of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei via the i.n. and oral routes survived, respectively. The survival rates of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei were 80% and 60% for the i.n. and oral routes, respectively ( Fig. 4E and F, right panel) .
The breadth of protection of the sM2 vaccine against divergent influenza subtypes was also evaluated. Set of immunized mice were challenged with high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A/ EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), which contains 2 amino acid mismatches relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Mice immunized via the i.n. and oral routes with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed higher protection efficacies, 80% and 60%, respectively, compared with mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei, for which the rates were 60% and 20%, respectively ( Fig. 4G and H, right panel) . Regarding morbidity, mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed lower morbidity than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4G and H, left panel) . One more set of vaccinated mice were challenged with the A/Aquatic bird/ Korea/W44/2005 (H7N3) virus, which contains 1 mismatch relative to the consensus sM2 sequence, and the body weight and survival were observed for 13 dpi. As shown in figure 4I and J, unimmunized mice lost as much as 30% of their body weight than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4I and J, left panel) . Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei through the i.n route showed significantly higher level of protection against the H7N3 influenza virus than the other groups ( Fig. 4I and J, right panel) . Taken together, the results indicate that i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced immune responses that conferred significant levels of protection against divergent subtypes of influenza viruses containing mismatched amino acids ranging from 0 to 8 of the consensus sM2, regardless of whether it was complete or partial.
Virus titers in the lungs of challenged mice were measured to estimate replication at 3 and 5 dpi. Mice were immunized via the i.n and oral routes with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei and challenged with the H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 or H7N3 influenza subtypes. On 3 and 5 dpi, 3 mice were sacrificed randomly from each group, and their lung virus titers were measured using the TCID 50 method. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei had lower titers at 3 dpi and had significantly reduced viral replication at 5 dpi compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or the control groups at the same time ( Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced viral titers in the lungs were observed in groups of mice immunized via the i.n route relative to the mice immunized via the oral route, particularly at day 3 post infections (Fig. 5) . These reduced titers may be due to routes of vaccination and challenge being the same, and the titers correlated with the survival results for lethal infections with H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 and H7N3. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the consensus sM2 protein fused with CTA1 afforded better protection than sM2, and the i.n route was more potent than the oral route of immunization with regard to protection against a lethal challenge of divergent influenza subtypes.
Histopathology and immunohistochemistry were performed to corroborate the lung virus titer findings. At 5 dpi, lungs were randomly collected from each group of one set, fixed and stained with eosin before being examined under a light microscope. As shown in figure 5K , clear signs of profound pulmonary inflammation were observed in the lungs of mice treated with PBS or pgsA/L. casei for both the oral and i.n routes of administration, whereas the lungs of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed no remarkable pulmonary inflammation compare to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei-treated mice (Fig. 5K, middle and left panel) . For immunohistochemistry, immunoperoxidase method with an antibody directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus was used for the detection of virus infected cells in the respective tissues. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. As shown in figure 5K, at 5 days p.i., numerous virusinfected cells were detected in control or pgsA-sM2/L. casei vaccinated mice, whereas highly reduced number of antigen positive cells were found in the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, both in i.n. and orally immunized group (Fig. 5K right panel) . These results indicate that mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei developed immune responses that are strong enough to inhibit virus replication, which promotes the survival of mice after a lethal infection by influenza A.
The PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei Vaccination Induced Longlasting Cross Protection
The duration of protection is an important criterion for a potential vaccine. Thus, the longevity of the immunity induced by sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 were investigated by detecting serum IgG and mucosal IgA by ELISA. Significantly increase levels of sM2-specific serum IgG as well as lung and intestinal IgA were observed 180 days after vaccination ( Fig. 6A and C) compare to PBS and pgsA/L. casei groups. Mice were challenged with A/ Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), and the body weight changes and survival were monitored until 13 dpi. The unimmunized mice showed .30% body weight loss (Fig. 6B and D left panel) and died by day 9 post infection in both the oral and i.n. groups. In contrast, the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight loss, which was recovered by 13 dpi; 80% survived in the i.n. immunized group (Fig. 6B right panel) , and 60% survived in the orally immunized group (Fig. 6D right panel) . This result indicates that the CTA1conjugated sM2 mucosal vaccine conferred protection against a lethal infection 6 months after the final immunization.
The mucosal immune system is the first immunological barrier against the pathogens that invade the body via the mucosal surface. Thus, the induction of mucosal immunity is necessary to ensure protection against multiple subtypes of influenza A virus. A respiratory virus, influenza A is responsible for annual seasonal epidemics worldwide and, occasionally, pandemics, which are caused by emerging novel subtypes/strains derived through reassortment with avian or porcine viruses. Current influenza vaccines provide strain-specific protection only. Thus, it is crucial to establish a broadly cross-protective influenza vaccine. Antigens that are well conserved among influenza A viruses are considered promising targets for the induction of cross-protection against these different subtypes. However, the goal should be the development of a first line of defense by effectively eliminating pathogens at the mucosal surface. Influenza matrix protein-2 (M2) is relatively well conserved among the influenza subtypes and can be considered a promising influenza vaccine antigen [30] . It consists of the following three structural domains: a 24-amino-acid extracellular domain, a 19-amino-acid transmembrane domain, and a 54-amino-acid cytoplasmic tail domain [39, 40] . The extracellular and cytoplasmic domains, which are well conserved among influenza viruses and play an important role in viral assembly and morphogenesis, were used in this study. Here, we developed sM2 consensus derived from the analysis of sequences of H5N1, H1N1 and H9N2 subtypes in the database. Considering the previous findings that extracellular domain particularly (aa, 1-13) is highly conserved among the influenza virus subtypes and recognized as epitope for the induction of monoclonal antibodies, which could protect influenza virus infection [56] , sM2 backbone sequence from the H5N1 virus were used. For the possible homology among other subtypes we changed at the position of 14 (E-G) and 18 (R-K) and kept unchanged the conserved epitope (aa, 1-13). As shown in sequence alignment, sM2 of consensus sequence has 0-8 mismatches among the subtypes used in this study (Table 1) .
Moreover, the incorporation of an adjuvant is considered essential to boost the interaction of the vaccine with the mucosal immune system [41] . Various adjuvants, such as liposomes, nanoparticles, and immunostimulating complexes (ISCOMs), have been studied and were found to improve the immune response [42] , but their efficacies were not optimal. Despite its potential as a mucosal adjuvant [43] , the use of cholera toxin (CT) in vaccines is limited by its innate toxicity. Thus, the toxicity of CT would have to be separated from its adjuvanticity before it could be used as a vaccine adjuvant. Studies have shown that constructs consisting of M2e fused with cholera toxin subunit A1 along with a strong ADPribosylating agent and a dimer of the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus protein A vaccine elicited complete protection and reduced morbidity [6, 44] . CTA1 retains the adjuvant function of CT without its toxic side effects, such as reactogenicity at the site of its administration and binding to or accumulation in the nervous tissues [45] . Based on previous findings, it has been hypothesized that the consensus sM2 fragment, when fused with the potent mucosal adjuvant CTA1, may induce broad protective immunity against divergent subtypes of influenza virus. In this study, we used the whole 22-kDa CTA1 protein (an ADP ribosyltransferase), which consists of three distinct subdomains: CTA11 (residues 1 to 132), CTA12 (residues 133 to 161), and CTA13 (residues 162 to 192). It has been reported that CTA1 lacking CTB has strong adjuvant activities without any toxicity. CTA1 enhances the IgA and IgG antibody responses, as well as CTL activity [47] .
For the development of a universal mucosal influenza vaccine with a conserved sM2 peptide and potent adjuvant CTA1, recombinant L. casei displaying sM2 fused with or without CTA1
The lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed clear alveoli without inflammatory cell infiltration, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control mice, both of which revealed features of severe pneumonitis (middle and left panel). Reduced number of viral antigen were detected in lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control revealed features of severe pneumonitis with increase virus antigen (right panel). Micrographs are representative for each treatment group at a magnification of 200X. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. In lung titers, bars denote mean 6 S.D. The asterisk indicates a significant difference between pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei and other groups (*P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g005 were constructed for mucosal delivery by the widely used live vaccine vehicle LAB [38] . The pgsA gene used in this study is an anchor for display on the surface of LAB which is derived from the pgsBCA enzyme complex of Bacillus subtilis and consists of transmembrane domain near its N-terminus with the domain located on the outside of the cell membrane. Thus, pgsA is able to cross the cell wall and display the heterologous protein fused to its C-terminus [17] .
The developed vaccines were tested through two major routes. We found that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei was able to induce a significantly higher level of sM2-specific serum IgG ( Fig. 2A and B ) and mucosal IgA (Fig. 2C and D) compared to pgsA-sM2/L. casei, and conferring protection against divergent influenza subtypes of both phylogenetic group 1 (H1, H5, H9) and group 2 (H7) [46] (Fig. 4) . This study also revealed that i.n. administration was superior to the oral route of vaccination, which is consistent with other observations [48] . There may be two possible reasons to explain this phenomenon. First, the challenge route is the same as that of the vaccination; specific mucosal IgA can prevent viral colonization in the respiratory tract. Second, the volume of the inocula was 5 times lower than that for oral inoculation, which may have allowed the concentrated form of the antigen to be presented to immune cells. Because greater levels of serum IgG and mucosal IgA were detected in intranasally immunized mice than in those immunized orally (Fig. 2) , an alternative explanation could be that the antigens are processed and/or presented differently to immune cells in the two mucosal compartments. Importantly, our study demonstrated for the first time that mucosal immunization with the LAB surface-displayed CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate induced broad protection against challenge with divergent influenza subtypes.
However, the mechanism by which Abs against sM2 mediated this broad protection is not fully understood. Previous studies have demonstrated that Abs to the N-terminus of M2e, particularly positions 1-10, inhibited the replication of the influenza A virus [49, 50] . Other studies revealed that anti-M2e IgG-mediated cellular cytotoxicity or phagocytosis can induce the removal of infected cells before progeny virus budding and spread [54, 55] which is supporting our findings of lung virus titer and immunohistochemistry data detected at 5 dpi in our challenge experiments. Therefore, in this study, combination of those responses and Abs to the N-terminus of the sM2 sequence which is conserved among the challenge viruses (Table 1 ) may protect the divergent influenza subtypes after mucosal immunization with the recombinant LAB CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate. Moreover, the cellular immune response plays an important role in controlling viral replication. We examined the Th1-type (IFN-c) and Th2-type (IL-4) cytokine responses by the ELISPOT assay. Significantly higher levels of IFN-c were detected in response to stimulation with both the sM2 protein and M2 peptide in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei compared to the levels in mice in the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups ( Fig. 3A and C) . Similarly, substantially high levels of IL-4 were observed in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei upon stimulation with the sM2 protein and M2 peptide ( Fig. 3B and D) . These results further support the findings that the antibodies and cell-mediated cytotoxicity were specific to the M2 antigen and that their anti-viral activities were induced by monomeric M2, three copies of M2 fused with ASP-1 [34, 51, 52] . Together, these results indicate that sM2 adjuvanted with fused CTA1 induced immune responses in mice, which protected them from divergent influenza subtypes. In this regard, our results have significance for the use of CTA1, which has adjuvant function, in vaccine candidates.
As clinical protection is not the only parameter by which vaccine performance is assessed, we evaluated the immunogenicity of the recombinant LAB vaccine on the basis of other parameters, such as the reduction of pathological lesions and virus shedding. In this study, low titers of the challenge virus were titrated from the lungs after vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, whereas challenge virus could be detected at higher titers in the mock mice and those vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced gross and histopathological lesions consistent with viral infection are the primary parameters indicative of influenza vaccine efficacy. Here, we demonstrated that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei remarkably limited the severity of the damage by inhibiting viral replication and the accumulation of inflammatory cells and virus antigen in the lung alveolar tissues, relative to the severity in the unimmunized mice and the mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5K) .
Our study further demonstrated, for the first time, that recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-sM2 induced long-lasting immunity and conferred protection against lethal infections by influenza, even at 6 months after the final vaccination (Fig. 6) , which is important for any successful vaccine. Similar results were observed in previous studies, in which M2 VLP conferred longterm immunity and cross protection and the antibodies in the sera and mucosal sites were long lived [53, 54] .
In conclusion, our findings revealed that the mucosal immunization of mice with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated sM2 can induce systemic and local, as well as cellmediated, immune responses against divergent influenza virus subtypes. Thus, the recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated consensus sM2 mucosal vaccine may be a promising vaccine candidate for influenza pandemic preparedness. | What was found in the lungs of the control mice in this study? | {
"answer_start": [
38975
],
"text": [
"severe pneumonitis"
]
} | false |
5,192 | Mucosal Vaccination with Recombinant Lactobacillus casei-Displayed CTA1-Conjugated Consensus Matrix Protein-2 (sM2) Induces Broad Protection against Divergent Influenza Subtypes in BALB/c Mice
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979752/
SHA: efaa556b484fbcd9cc34832ffac53ef3e834e9c0
Authors: Chowdhury, Mohammed Y. E.; Li, Rui; Kim, Jae-Hoon; Park, Min-Eun; Kim, Tae-Hwan; Pathinayake, Prabuddha; Weeratunga, Prasanna; Song, Man Ki; Son, Hwa-Young; Hong, Seung-Pyo; Sung, Moon-Hee; Lee, Jong-Soo; Kim, Chul-Joong
Date: 2014-04-08
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094051
License: cc-by
Abstract: To develop a safe and effective mucosal vaccine against pathogenic influenza viruses, we constructed recombinant Lactobacillus casei strains that express conserved matrix protein 2 with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei) or without (pgsA-sM2/L. casei) cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) on the surface. The surface localization of the fusion protein was verified by cellular fractionation analyses, flow cytometry and immunofluorescence microscopy. Oral and nasal inoculations of recombinant L. casei into mice resulted in high levels of serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) and mucosal IgA. However, the conjugation of cholera toxin subunit A1 induced more potent mucosal, humoral and cell-mediated immune responses. In a challenge test with 10 MLD(50) of A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird /Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) viruses, the recombinant pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei provided better protection against lethal challenges than pgsA-sM2/L. casei, pgsA/L. casei and PBS in mice. These results indicate that mucosal immunization with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-conjugated sM2 protein on its surface is an effective means of eliciting protective immune responses against diverse influenza subtypes.
Text: Vaccination remains most economical and effective means against respiratory diseases caused by influenza viruses [1] . Based on the circulating viruses in the population, trivalent vaccine strains have been developed and are used for the influenza virus protection [2] . The most acceptable current available strategy is the intramuscular administration of inactivated vaccines produced by egg-based manufacturing systems which while effective, are hampered by limited capacity and flexibility [3] . However, vaccine strains must be frequently adapted to match the circulating viruses throughout the world [4] . In addition, the levels of antibody induced by the inactivated vaccine have been observed to decrease by 75% over an 8-month period [2, 5] . Therefore, alternative strategies for developing broadly cross-protective, safe and effective vaccines against influenza viral infections are of prominent importance.
Matrix protein 2 (M2) is highly conserved among influenza A virus strains, indicating that M2 is an attractive target for developing a universal vaccine [6] . In previous studies, various constructs of the M2 vaccine have been developed and tested, including recombinant Escherichia coli (E. coli) expressing M2 fusion protein, adenoviral vectors expressing the M2 protein, plasmid DNA encoding M2 [7] [8] [9] and peptides encoding M2e [11] , each of which was able to elicit protective immune responses in mice. However, the drawback of these M2-based vaccines is their low immunogenicity; additionally, most of them would require intramuscular injections. Therefore, many strategies have been applied focusing on increasing the immunogenicity of M2-based vaccines, for example, fusion of M2 with different carrier molecules like human papilloma virus L protein [12] , keyhole limpet hemocyanin [10] and flagellin [13] . Furthermore, vaccinations with different adjuvants and routes of administration have been applied to evaluate their protection against divergent strains of influenza viruses. Mice immunized mucosally with an M2 or virus like particles (VLPs) adjuvanted with cholera toxin (CT) demonstrated better protection compared to mice subjected to parenteral immunization [14, 15] . However, due to the adverse effects of CT in humans, investigators have attempted to identify nontoxic subunits with adjuvanticity by removing either subunit A or subunit B [16] . E. coli expressing cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) fused with the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus showed the adjuvant effects without any reactogenicity of the A1 subunit in the mucosal vaccine [6] . Although, chemical or genetic conjugation of M2 may not present M2 in its native tetrameric form, extracellularly accessible antigens expressed on the surfaces of bacteria are better recognized by the immune system than those that are intracellular [17] . Thus, choice of delivery vehicle is also an important concern for potential mucosal vaccines.
Recently, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) presenting influenza virus antigens have been studied [3, 18, 19] . For mucosal immunization, LAB is a more attractive delivery system than other live vaccine vectors, such as Shigella, Salmonella, and Listeria [20, 21] . It is considered safe and exhibits an adjuvant-like effect on mucosal and systemic immunity [18, 22, 23] . Anchoring of the target protein to the cell surfaces of LAB is primarily intended to use in mucosal vaccines. The transmembrane protein pgsA is one of the poly-cglutamate synthetase complexes of Bacillus subtilis [17, 24, 25] , which is a well-studied anchor protein is able to fuse the target protein to its C terminus and stabilize the complex by anchoring it in the cell membrane. Since sM2 is a highly conserved and promising target for a universal vaccine and CTA1 is strong mucosal adjuvant, in this study, we developed constructs using a consensus sM2 gene reconstituted from the analysis of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2 influenza viruses (no trans-membrane domain) with or without the fusion of CTA1. To achieve this, we used a novel expression vector that can express a pgsA gene product as an anchoring matrix. Our target antigens, sM2 and CTA1, were displayed on the surface of Lactobacillus casei, and the oral or intranasal administration of recombinant L. casei induced systemic and mucosal immune responses that have the potential to protect against the lethal challenges of divergent influenza subtypes.
A total of 672 female BALB/c mice (5 weeks old) were purchased from Samtako (Seoul, Korea) and housed in ventilated cages. The mice were managed with pelleted feed and tap water ad libitum, maintained in a specific-pathogen-free environment and all efforts were made to minimize suffering following approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of of Bioleaders Corporation, Daejeon, South Korea, protocol number: BSL-ABLS-13-002. Immunizations of animal were conducted in biosafety level (BSL)-2 laboratory facilities. Mice were divided into 6 experimental sets, each consisting of 2 subsets: 1 for oral and 1 for intranasal administration which contained 4 groups each. Out of 6, 4 sets had 14 mice per group. One sets had 17 (3 mice for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry), and the last contained 11 mice per group (3 mice for CTL response).
Concentrations of recombinant L. casei were determined by colony forming units (CFU). In each subset, 2 groups received 10 10 CFU of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, and the remaining two groups received the same concentration of pKV-pgsA/L. casei or PBS in 100 ml orally via intragastric lavage at days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21 to 23. Similarly, 10 9 CFU of recombinant cells were administered in 20 ml suspensions into the nostrils of lightly anesthetized mice on days 0 to 3, 7 to 9 and 21. Blood samples were collected from the retro-orbital plexus at days 21, 14 and 28; sera were separated by centrifugation for 5 minutes at 12,0006g and stored at 220uC until analysis. At day 28, 3 mice in each group were randomly sacrificed to collect IgA sample from lungs and intestine and stored at 270uC until analysis. Spleens were collected aseptically at day 28 for the analysis of the CTL response randomly from 3 mice of one set. The rest of the mice from the same set were maintained for 6 months from the date of the last boosting to measure the long-lasting immune responses and protection efficacy.
The avian influenza viruses A/EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2), A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W44/2005(H7N3), and A/ Chicken/Korea/116/2004(H9N2) used in this study were kindly provided by Dr. Young-Ki Choi (College of Medicine and Medical Research Institute, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea). All viruses were propagated in the allantoic fluid of 10-day-old chicken embryos, and 50% mouse lethal doses (MLD 50 ) were determined in 8-week-old naive BALB/ c mice. Ether narcosis-anesthetized mice were intranasally infected with 10 times the MLD 50 of challenge viruses in 20 ml of PBS. Six mice in each group were sacrificed on 3 and 5 dpi to check virus titer in lungs and other 5 mice remained in each group have been used for survival. Mice were monitored every alternate day at fixed time point for measuring the weight loss and survival. Mice were euthanized if moribund, i.e. weight loss, ruffled fur, shivering, tachypnea, respiratory distress, hypothermia and poorly responsive to external stimuli, remaining were considered as survival number. After final monitoring, all the survived mice were humanely euthanized using CO 2 inhalation for 5 minutes.
At 180 days after the final vaccination, mice from one set were challenged with H5N2 for measuring the long lasting immune responses. All challenge tests were conducted inside an approved BSL-3+ facility under appropriate conditions. Bacterial Strains and Cloning for the Construction of Recombinant Plasmid PgsA-sM2/L. casei and PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei In this study, E. coli JM83 was used for cloning and L. casei L525 was used for surface expression of the target protein. These bacteria were grown in LB and MRS media, respectively. The plasmid pKV-Pald-PgsA, harboring the pgsA genes of Bacillus subtilis, was used to construct the surface display plasmid, which was a kind gift from the Bioleaders Corporation (Daejeon, South Korea). A gene encoding the consensus sequence of M2 spanning the residues of the extracellular and cytoplasmic domains without the transmembrane domain of influenza virus was generated. The consensus sequences were created based on the most common amino acids in each position of the alignment of H1N1, H5N1 and H9N2; then, they were synthesized and used as templates for the construction of the plasmids pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei by cloning, as described previously [26, 27] . The sM2 gene was modified by adding a Kpn I site at the 59 terminal and Sal I at the 39 terminal for cloning. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed to amplify the gene using the primer pair 59-GGGGTACCTCATTATTAACA-39, and 59-ACGTCGACT-CATTATTCAAGTTCAATAATG AC-39. Similarly, a BamH I site at the 59 terminal and a Kpn I site at the 39 terminal end were added to the CTA1 gene using primers 59-CGGGATCCAAT-GATGATAAGTTATAT-39 and 59-GGGT ACCCGAT-GATCTTGGAGC ATT-39. The modified genes were ligated into the T Easy Vector (Invitrogen, Seoul, Korea). Genes were then digested with Kpn I-Sal I for sM2 and BamH I-Kpn I for CTA1. The digested sM2 was ligated to the plasmid vector pKV-pgsA for the construction of pKV-pgsA-sM2. Similarly, CTA1 was ligated for the construction of pKV-pgsA-CTA1-sM2. The ligated products were transformed into E. coli JM83 competent cells, as previously described, using an electroporation method [17] . The profiles of the recombinant plasmids were confirmed by restriction endonuclease digestion and DNA sequencing (Solgent, Seoul, Korea). After confirmation, the plasmids were transformed into L. casei L525 by electroporation and named pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei.
The recombinant L. casei containing pgsA, pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 genes were grown at 30uC for 48 hours. Cells were harvested by centrifugation at 6,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, followed by washing two times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Bacterial lyses were performed by sonication and centrifuged at 12,0006g for 20 minutes at 4uC. Cell wall and cytoplasmic fractions were separated by centrifugation at 25,0006g at 4uC for 2 hours. Pellets (cell wall) were resuspended in 100 ml of 1% sarcosol containing 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) as a protease inhibitor. Fractions were analyzed by western blotting, as described previously. For the immune detection of fusion proteins, the membranes were probed with rabbit anti-cholera toxin (1:2000, Abcam, UK), rabbit anti-pgsA (1:1000) and rabbit anti-M2 (1:1000) antibodies. The rabbit anti-pgsA and rabbit anti-M2 antibodies used in this experiment were generated by the i.m. inoculation of KLH-conjugated pgsA or M2 peptide in rabbit, respectively, two times at 2 weeks-interval. The membranes were reacted with a 1:10,000 dilution of anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (IgG HRP). Finally, the target proteins were detected using the WEST-ZOL plus Western Blot Detection System (iNtRON Biotechnology, Gyeonggi-do, Korea) and visualized by enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) [17, 26, 28] .
To investigate the expression of sM2 or CTA1-sM2 on the surface of L. casei, recombinant L. casei were grown in 30uC for 48 hours in the MRS broth. Bacteria were harvested by centrifugation at 5,0006g for 10 minutes at 4uC, washed three times with sterile phosphate-buffered saline containing 0.01% Tween-20 (PBST) and probed with polyclonal rabbit anti-M2 or rabbit anti-CT antibody overnight. Following another washing, the cells were treated with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)conjugated anti-rabbit IgG antibodies (Burlingame, CA, USA) for 2 hours. Finally, 10,000 cells were analyzed by flow cytometry (Becton Dickinson, Oxnard, CA, USA). For the immunofluorescence, cells were prepared under the same condition described for the flow cytometry. The pgsA/L. casei was used as a negative control and Immunofluoresence analysis was examined using a Carl Zeiss Axioskop 2 fluorescence microscope.
ELISA Antibody titers were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using serum or mucosal samples from vaccinated mice. First, 96-well immunosorbent plates (Nunc) were incubated with 300 ng/well purified sM2 or CTA1 proteins at 4uC overnight. The recombinant sM2 and CTA1 proteins used in this study were purified from E. coli. Next, the wells were blocked with 10% skim milk for 2 hours in RT, washed five times with PBST, treated with diluted serum samples (1:200) in triplicate for detecting IgG and undiluted tissue homogenized supernatant for detecting local IgA and incubated for 2 hours at 37uC. After washing three times, goat anti-mouse IgG HRP (1:1000, sigma) or anti-mouse IgA was added to each well and incubated for an additional 2 hours at 37uC. Following another round of washing, the plates were reacted with the substrate solution containing tetramethylbenzidine and H 2 O 2 and allowed to precede the reaction for 10 minutes. After adding the stop solution 2N-H 2 SO 4 , the optical density (OD) was measured at 450 nm using an ELISA autoreader (Molecular devices).
The development and counting of cytokines were performed by ELISPOTs, as described previously [31, 32] . Briefly, the day before the isolation of splenocytes, ELISPOT 96-well plates were coated with monoclonal anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 capture antibodies (5 mg/ml) in PBS and incubated at 4uC overnight. The plates were washed with PBS, and 200 ml/well of blocking solution containing complete RPMI 1640 medium and 10% fetal bovine serum, was added (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and incubated for 2 hours in RT. Spleens from the vaccinated mice were isolated aseptically and added at 5610 4 cells/well in media containing sM2 protein, M2 peptide (SLLTEVETPTRNGWECKCSD) (1 mg/well), only medium (negative control), or 5 mg/ml phytohemagglutinin (positive control, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). After adding cells and stimulators, the plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37uC with 5% CO 2 . The plates were sequentially treated with biotinylated anti-mouse IFN-c and IL-4 antibodies, streptavidinhorseradish peroxidase, and substrate solution. Finally, the spots were counted using an ImmunoScan Entry analyzer (Cellular Technology, Shaker Heights, USA).
The lungs were collected aseptically, and virus titers were determined by 50% tissue culture infectious dose (TCID 50 ), as described previously [33] . Briefly, lung tissues were homogenized in 500 ml of PBS containing antibiotics (penicillin, and streptomycin) and antimycotics (Fungizone) compounds (Gibco, Grand Island, NY, USA). Mechanically homogenized lung samples were centrifuged (15 minutes, 12,0006g and 4uC) to remove the cellular debris before their storage at 280uC. MDCK cells were inoculated with a 10-fold serially diluted sample and incubated at 37uC in a humid atmosphere of 5% CO 2 for an hour. After absorption, the media was removed, and overlay medium containing L-1-tosylamido-2-phenylethyl chloromethyl ketone (TPCK) trypsin (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rockford, USA) was added to the infected cells and incubated for 72 hours. Viral cytopathic effects were observed daily, and the titers were determined by the HA test. The viral titer of each sample was expressed as 50% tissue infected doses using the Reed-Muench method [34] .
For histopathology, lung tissues were collected at 5 dpi from ether narcosis-anesthetized mice. Tissues were immediately fixed in 10% formalin containing neutral buffer, embedded in paraffin wax, sectioned at 4-6 mm thickness using a microtome machine, mounted onto slides, and stained with eosin stain. Histopathological changes were examined by light microscopy, as previously described [29, 30, 35] . Furthermore, slides were stained using an immunoperoxidase method with an antibody (rabbit anti-M2, 1:500) directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus. A Goat-anti-rabbit IgG HRP (1:2000, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) was used as the secondary antibody for the detection of virus infected cells in respective tissues [57] .
Data are presented as the means 6 standard deviations (S.D.) and are representative of at least three independent experiments. Differences between groups were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), and means were compared by Student's t-test. P-values less than 0.05 were regarded as significant. Results for percent initial body weight were also compared by using Student's t test.
Comparison of survival was done by log-rank test using GraphPad Prism 6 version.
The pgsA-expressing vector was used to construct plasmids containing the highly conserved consensus sM2 gene, with (pgsA-CTA1-sM2) or without (pgsA-sM2) the cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1, Fig. 1A ). Plasmids were transformed into L. casei cells. The expression levels of pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were monitored by immunoblotting using anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies (data not shown).
To determine the cellular localization of the sM2 and CTA1 proteins expressed on the surface of L. casei via the cell wall anchor protein pgsA, membrane and cytoplasmic fractions were subjected to western blot analysis. As expected, both pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins were detected by anti-pgsA, anti-M2 or anti-CT polyclonal antibodies in the membrane, not in cytoplasmic fractions (Fig. 1B, lane 2, 3 and 4) . Immunoreactions were performed with anti-pgsA, and bands representing the size of the fused proteins pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 were detected, while during the reactions with anti-M2 or anti-CT antibodies, no other bands were detected (Fig. 1B, lane 3 and 4) . This finding may have resulted from the degradation that occurs during the membrane fractionation procedure.
Fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and immunofluorescence labeling of the cells were used to verify the localization of the fusion pgsA-sM2 and pgsA-CTA1-sM2 protein on the surface of L. casei. Flow cytometric analysis using rabbit anti-M2 and anti-CT antibodies revealed increase level of fluorescence intensity of pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells, compared to that of control L. casei cells (Fig. 1C ). Immunofluorescence microscopy also showed recombinant bacteria harboring pgsA-sM2 or pgsA-CTA1-sM2 that immunostained positive for sM2 and CTA1, but this was not found in control cells. These results demonstrated that recombinant L. casei could efficiently display the sM2 and CTA1-sM2 fusion proteins on the surface, using pgsA as a membrane anchor protein.
Immune Responses Induced by Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface Displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2
Preliminary experiment was conducted to determine the doses and schedule of pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei vaccine candidate on influenza virus protection (data not shown). To characterize the immunogenicity of the L. casei surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1conjugated sM2, BALB/c mice were immunized nasally (10 9 cells/20 ml dose) or orally (10 10 cells/100 ml dose) with recombinant live pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei bacteria. As a negative control, mice were immunized with L. casei harboring the parental plasmid pKV-pgsA (pgsA/L. casei) and PBS. Serum samples were collected at 0, 14 and 28 days and analyzed by ELISA, using sM2 and CTA1 proteins (purified from E. coli) as a coating antigen. After the first series of immunization, comparatively low levels of serum IgG were detected both in the i.n. and orally immunized group. However, high antibody levels were detected shortly after the second series of immunization, and the CTA1-conjugated sM2 group induced serum IgG at significant level, compared to sM2-only group and negative controls ( Fig. 2A and B) . Although the conjugation of CTA1 with sM2 was expected to have an adjuvant function only, a significant level of anti-CTA1 antibodies was detected in both the nasal and oral vaccinations ( Fig. 2A and B right panel) . In comparison with the oral group, the nasally immunized group showed higher levels of serum IgG specific to both sM2 and CTA1.
To assess the mucosal immune responses, the local IgA levels were determined by ELISA. Lung and intestinal tissues were collected at day 28 of immunization and examined using sM2 protein as a coating antigen. In both routes of vaccination, pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced significantly increased levels of sM2specific mucosal IgA compared to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups. However, as expected, higher levels of antibody titers were detected at the site of inoculation than at the remote site. A similar pattern of antibody responses was observed for both routes of immunization, in which the pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei groups dominated ( Fig. 2C and D) . These data demonstrated that cholera toxin subunit A1-conjugated sM2 resulted in significant enhancements to the sM2-specific IgG and mucosal IgA levels compared with sM2 alone or with controls immunized with pgsA/ L. casei or PBS.
Mucosal Immunization with L. casei Surface-displayed sM2 and CTA1-sM2 Stimulated M2-specific Cellular Immune Response
To determine whether mucosal vaccination with L. casei surfacedisplayed sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 could induce cellular immunity, IFN-c and IL-4 ELISPOT were performed. Splenocytes from vaccinated mice were stimulated with 10 mg/ml of recombinant sM2 protein or M2 peptide, and the cytokine ELISPOTs were developed. The spots were counted to measure the differences in the CTL responses between the groups. Cells from the mice immunized i.n. with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed significant levels of IFN-c in response to stimulation with sM2 protein and M2 peptide (Fig. 3A) . Similarly, we observed that i.n. administered groups both for pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed detectable levels of IL-4 secreting splenocytes following stimulation with either sM2 protein or M2 peptide (Fig. 3B) . IFN-c and IL-4 secreting cells were also observed in mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 3C ) although their levels were lower than i.n. group and were not significant. Control group immunized with pgsA/L. casei showed background spot level for both in intranasal and oral groups. These findings indicate that highly conserved sM2 can induce M2-specific IFN-c and IL-4 secreting T cell responses, while mucosal delivery through L. casei and CTA1 conjugation with sM2 enhanced the cell mediated immunity, which may contribute to broadening the protective immunity.
M2 is known as a potential target for the development of broad spectrum influenza vaccine with minimum variability [36, 37] . To confirm the variability of sM2 sequences of the challenged viruses used in this study, we compared the sM2 of influenza subtypes available from U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) with our consensus sM2 sequence particularly the whole conserved ecto and some portion of cytoplasmic domain (CD) although entire CD was included in vaccine construct (Table 1) . We found that, viruses used in this study contain 0-8 mismatched amino acids among the amino acids of sM2 compared in this study. To evaluate the efficacy of the sM2 vaccine, week after the final immunization, mice were challenged i.n. with the 10 MLD 50 of A/Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005 (H5N2) influenza virus subtypes that was homologous to the consensus sM2 sequence. Mice immunized orally with pgsA-sM2/ L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed 40 and 60% protection respectively. Similarly, i.n. immunization groups conferred 40 and 80%, against the lethal infection with highly virulent H5N2 virus. In contrast, none of the unimmunized mice survived after lethal infection ( Fig. 4A and B, right panel) . Morbidity was increased in the mice immunized via oral route, whereas mice that received i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost ,20% of their initial body weight and started recovering by 9 day post infection (dpi) and had completely recovered by day 13 (Fig. 4A and B, left panel) .
We next evaluated the protection efficiency of sM2 vaccine candidate against A/Puerto Rico/8/34(H1N1), which contains 8 mismatched amino acids relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Sets of vaccinated mice were challenged with 10 MLD 50 of the H1N1 virus. As shown in figure 4C and D, mice immunized by the The mice were grouped as mentioned in materials and methods and received oral or nasal administrations, according to the schedule. Arrows indicated the immunization routes and periods of pgsA/L. casei, pgsA-sM2/L. casei or pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei cells. Sera were collected at days 0, 14 and 28; samples from the lungs and intestines were collected at day 28 after immunization. A week after the final immunization, spleens were excised from 3 mice in each group, with one set for CTL analysis. Two or 24 weeks after the last immunization, all mice were challenged with a lethal dose of influenza subtypes through intranasal route and monitored for 13 days. On days 3 and 5 post infection, the lungs were excised from 3 mice in each group to determine the virus titer. On 5 dpi, the mice from one set were sacrificed for lung histopathology and immunohistochemistry. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g001 CTA1-sM2 Induces Protective Immunity to Pathogenic Influenza A Viruses PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org i.n route exhibited a higher level of protection than the orally immunized groups, and mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei showed a significantly higher level of protection compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, right panel) . Unimmunized mice lost up to 40% of their body weight and died by 9 dpi. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei lost approximately 10% of their body weight, whereas mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei lost .20% of their initial body weight by 9 dpi and recovered more slowly than mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4C and D, left panel) .
Another set of vaccinated mice were infected with A/Chicken/ Korea/116/2004(H9N2) to check the range of protection ability of sM2 vaccine induced immune responses. The sM2 sequence of H9N2 contains 2 mismatched relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. The mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight losses and gradual recovery compared to those of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and the unimmunized mice for both the i.n and oral routes (Fig. 4E and F left panel) . None of the unimmunized mice survived, whereas 100% and 80% of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei via the i.n. and oral routes survived, respectively. The survival rates of mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei were 80% and 60% for the i.n. and oral routes, respectively ( Fig. 4E and F, right panel) .
The breadth of protection of the sM2 vaccine against divergent influenza subtypes was also evaluated. Set of immunized mice were challenged with high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A/ EM/Korea/W149/06(H5N1), which contains 2 amino acid mismatches relative to the sM2 consensus sequence. Mice immunized via the i.n. and oral routes with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed higher protection efficacies, 80% and 60%, respectively, compared with mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei, for which the rates were 60% and 20%, respectively ( Fig. 4G and H, right panel) . Regarding morbidity, mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed lower morbidity than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4G and H, left panel) . One more set of vaccinated mice were challenged with the A/Aquatic bird/ Korea/W44/2005 (H7N3) virus, which contains 1 mismatch relative to the consensus sM2 sequence, and the body weight and survival were observed for 13 dpi. As shown in figure 4I and J, unimmunized mice lost as much as 30% of their body weight than mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei ( Fig. 4I and J, left panel) . Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei through the i.n route showed significantly higher level of protection against the H7N3 influenza virus than the other groups ( Fig. 4I and J, right panel) . Taken together, the results indicate that i.n. immunization with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei induced immune responses that conferred significant levels of protection against divergent subtypes of influenza viruses containing mismatched amino acids ranging from 0 to 8 of the consensus sM2, regardless of whether it was complete or partial.
Virus titers in the lungs of challenged mice were measured to estimate replication at 3 and 5 dpi. Mice were immunized via the i.n and oral routes with pgsA-sM2/L. casei and pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei and challenged with the H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 or H7N3 influenza subtypes. On 3 and 5 dpi, 3 mice were sacrificed randomly from each group, and their lung virus titers were measured using the TCID 50 method. Mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei had lower titers at 3 dpi and had significantly reduced viral replication at 5 dpi compared to mice immunized with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or the control groups at the same time ( Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced viral titers in the lungs were observed in groups of mice immunized via the i.n route relative to the mice immunized via the oral route, particularly at day 3 post infections (Fig. 5) . These reduced titers may be due to routes of vaccination and challenge being the same, and the titers correlated with the survival results for lethal infections with H5N2, H1N1, H9N2, H5N1 and H7N3. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the consensus sM2 protein fused with CTA1 afforded better protection than sM2, and the i.n route was more potent than the oral route of immunization with regard to protection against a lethal challenge of divergent influenza subtypes.
Histopathology and immunohistochemistry were performed to corroborate the lung virus titer findings. At 5 dpi, lungs were randomly collected from each group of one set, fixed and stained with eosin before being examined under a light microscope. As shown in figure 5K , clear signs of profound pulmonary inflammation were observed in the lungs of mice treated with PBS or pgsA/L. casei for both the oral and i.n routes of administration, whereas the lungs of the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed no remarkable pulmonary inflammation compare to the pgsA-sM2/L. casei-treated mice (Fig. 5K, middle and left panel) . For immunohistochemistry, immunoperoxidase method with an antibody directed against the matrix protein-2 of influenza A virus was used for the detection of virus infected cells in the respective tissues. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. As shown in figure 5K, at 5 days p.i., numerous virusinfected cells were detected in control or pgsA-sM2/L. casei vaccinated mice, whereas highly reduced number of antigen positive cells were found in the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, both in i.n. and orally immunized group (Fig. 5K right panel) . These results indicate that mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei developed immune responses that are strong enough to inhibit virus replication, which promotes the survival of mice after a lethal infection by influenza A.
The PgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei Vaccination Induced Longlasting Cross Protection
The duration of protection is an important criterion for a potential vaccine. Thus, the longevity of the immunity induced by sM2 and CTA1-conjugated sM2 were investigated by detecting serum IgG and mucosal IgA by ELISA. Significantly increase levels of sM2-specific serum IgG as well as lung and intestinal IgA were observed 180 days after vaccination ( Fig. 6A and C) compare to PBS and pgsA/L. casei groups. Mice were challenged with A/ Aquatic bird/Korea/W81/2005(H5N2), and the body weight changes and survival were monitored until 13 dpi. The unimmunized mice showed .30% body weight loss (Fig. 6B and D left panel) and died by day 9 post infection in both the oral and i.n. groups. In contrast, the mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed negligible body weight loss, which was recovered by 13 dpi; 80% survived in the i.n. immunized group (Fig. 6B right panel) , and 60% survived in the orally immunized group (Fig. 6D right panel) . This result indicates that the CTA1conjugated sM2 mucosal vaccine conferred protection against a lethal infection 6 months after the final immunization.
The mucosal immune system is the first immunological barrier against the pathogens that invade the body via the mucosal surface. Thus, the induction of mucosal immunity is necessary to ensure protection against multiple subtypes of influenza A virus. A respiratory virus, influenza A is responsible for annual seasonal epidemics worldwide and, occasionally, pandemics, which are caused by emerging novel subtypes/strains derived through reassortment with avian or porcine viruses. Current influenza vaccines provide strain-specific protection only. Thus, it is crucial to establish a broadly cross-protective influenza vaccine. Antigens that are well conserved among influenza A viruses are considered promising targets for the induction of cross-protection against these different subtypes. However, the goal should be the development of a first line of defense by effectively eliminating pathogens at the mucosal surface. Influenza matrix protein-2 (M2) is relatively well conserved among the influenza subtypes and can be considered a promising influenza vaccine antigen [30] . It consists of the following three structural domains: a 24-amino-acid extracellular domain, a 19-amino-acid transmembrane domain, and a 54-amino-acid cytoplasmic tail domain [39, 40] . The extracellular and cytoplasmic domains, which are well conserved among influenza viruses and play an important role in viral assembly and morphogenesis, were used in this study. Here, we developed sM2 consensus derived from the analysis of sequences of H5N1, H1N1 and H9N2 subtypes in the database. Considering the previous findings that extracellular domain particularly (aa, 1-13) is highly conserved among the influenza virus subtypes and recognized as epitope for the induction of monoclonal antibodies, which could protect influenza virus infection [56] , sM2 backbone sequence from the H5N1 virus were used. For the possible homology among other subtypes we changed at the position of 14 (E-G) and 18 (R-K) and kept unchanged the conserved epitope (aa, 1-13). As shown in sequence alignment, sM2 of consensus sequence has 0-8 mismatches among the subtypes used in this study (Table 1) .
Moreover, the incorporation of an adjuvant is considered essential to boost the interaction of the vaccine with the mucosal immune system [41] . Various adjuvants, such as liposomes, nanoparticles, and immunostimulating complexes (ISCOMs), have been studied and were found to improve the immune response [42] , but their efficacies were not optimal. Despite its potential as a mucosal adjuvant [43] , the use of cholera toxin (CT) in vaccines is limited by its innate toxicity. Thus, the toxicity of CT would have to be separated from its adjuvanticity before it could be used as a vaccine adjuvant. Studies have shown that constructs consisting of M2e fused with cholera toxin subunit A1 along with a strong ADPribosylating agent and a dimer of the D-fragment of Staphylococcus aureus protein A vaccine elicited complete protection and reduced morbidity [6, 44] . CTA1 retains the adjuvant function of CT without its toxic side effects, such as reactogenicity at the site of its administration and binding to or accumulation in the nervous tissues [45] . Based on previous findings, it has been hypothesized that the consensus sM2 fragment, when fused with the potent mucosal adjuvant CTA1, may induce broad protective immunity against divergent subtypes of influenza virus. In this study, we used the whole 22-kDa CTA1 protein (an ADP ribosyltransferase), which consists of three distinct subdomains: CTA11 (residues 1 to 132), CTA12 (residues 133 to 161), and CTA13 (residues 162 to 192). It has been reported that CTA1 lacking CTB has strong adjuvant activities without any toxicity. CTA1 enhances the IgA and IgG antibody responses, as well as CTL activity [47] .
For the development of a universal mucosal influenza vaccine with a conserved sM2 peptide and potent adjuvant CTA1, recombinant L. casei displaying sM2 fused with or without CTA1
The lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei showed clear alveoli without inflammatory cell infiltration, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control mice, both of which revealed features of severe pneumonitis (middle and left panel). Reduced number of viral antigen were detected in lungs of the mice vaccinated with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, in contrast to the lungs of mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei or control revealed features of severe pneumonitis with increase virus antigen (right panel). Micrographs are representative for each treatment group at a magnification of 200X. Virus antigen in epithelial cells appears as brown coloration of the nucleus and cytoplasm. In lung titers, bars denote mean 6 S.D. The asterisk indicates a significant difference between pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei and other groups (*P,0.05). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094051.g005 were constructed for mucosal delivery by the widely used live vaccine vehicle LAB [38] . The pgsA gene used in this study is an anchor for display on the surface of LAB which is derived from the pgsBCA enzyme complex of Bacillus subtilis and consists of transmembrane domain near its N-terminus with the domain located on the outside of the cell membrane. Thus, pgsA is able to cross the cell wall and display the heterologous protein fused to its C-terminus [17] .
The developed vaccines were tested through two major routes. We found that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei was able to induce a significantly higher level of sM2-specific serum IgG ( Fig. 2A and B ) and mucosal IgA (Fig. 2C and D) compared to pgsA-sM2/L. casei, and conferring protection against divergent influenza subtypes of both phylogenetic group 1 (H1, H5, H9) and group 2 (H7) [46] (Fig. 4) . This study also revealed that i.n. administration was superior to the oral route of vaccination, which is consistent with other observations [48] . There may be two possible reasons to explain this phenomenon. First, the challenge route is the same as that of the vaccination; specific mucosal IgA can prevent viral colonization in the respiratory tract. Second, the volume of the inocula was 5 times lower than that for oral inoculation, which may have allowed the concentrated form of the antigen to be presented to immune cells. Because greater levels of serum IgG and mucosal IgA were detected in intranasally immunized mice than in those immunized orally (Fig. 2) , an alternative explanation could be that the antigens are processed and/or presented differently to immune cells in the two mucosal compartments. Importantly, our study demonstrated for the first time that mucosal immunization with the LAB surface-displayed CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate induced broad protection against challenge with divergent influenza subtypes.
However, the mechanism by which Abs against sM2 mediated this broad protection is not fully understood. Previous studies have demonstrated that Abs to the N-terminus of M2e, particularly positions 1-10, inhibited the replication of the influenza A virus [49, 50] . Other studies revealed that anti-M2e IgG-mediated cellular cytotoxicity or phagocytosis can induce the removal of infected cells before progeny virus budding and spread [54, 55] which is supporting our findings of lung virus titer and immunohistochemistry data detected at 5 dpi in our challenge experiments. Therefore, in this study, combination of those responses and Abs to the N-terminus of the sM2 sequence which is conserved among the challenge viruses (Table 1 ) may protect the divergent influenza subtypes after mucosal immunization with the recombinant LAB CTA1-conjugated sM2-based vaccine candidate. Moreover, the cellular immune response plays an important role in controlling viral replication. We examined the Th1-type (IFN-c) and Th2-type (IL-4) cytokine responses by the ELISPOT assay. Significantly higher levels of IFN-c were detected in response to stimulation with both the sM2 protein and M2 peptide in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei compared to the levels in mice in the pgsA-sM2/L. casei and control groups ( Fig. 3A and C) . Similarly, substantially high levels of IL-4 were observed in mice immunized with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/ L. casei upon stimulation with the sM2 protein and M2 peptide ( Fig. 3B and D) . These results further support the findings that the antibodies and cell-mediated cytotoxicity were specific to the M2 antigen and that their anti-viral activities were induced by monomeric M2, three copies of M2 fused with ASP-1 [34, 51, 52] . Together, these results indicate that sM2 adjuvanted with fused CTA1 induced immune responses in mice, which protected them from divergent influenza subtypes. In this regard, our results have significance for the use of CTA1, which has adjuvant function, in vaccine candidates.
As clinical protection is not the only parameter by which vaccine performance is assessed, we evaluated the immunogenicity of the recombinant LAB vaccine on the basis of other parameters, such as the reduction of pathological lesions and virus shedding. In this study, low titers of the challenge virus were titrated from the lungs after vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei, whereas challenge virus could be detected at higher titers in the mock mice and those vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5A-J) . Reduced gross and histopathological lesions consistent with viral infection are the primary parameters indicative of influenza vaccine efficacy. Here, we demonstrated that vaccination with pgsA-CTA1-sM2/L. casei remarkably limited the severity of the damage by inhibiting viral replication and the accumulation of inflammatory cells and virus antigen in the lung alveolar tissues, relative to the severity in the unimmunized mice and the mice vaccinated with pgsA-sM2/L. casei (Fig. 5K) .
Our study further demonstrated, for the first time, that recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-sM2 induced long-lasting immunity and conferred protection against lethal infections by influenza, even at 6 months after the final vaccination (Fig. 6) , which is important for any successful vaccine. Similar results were observed in previous studies, in which M2 VLP conferred longterm immunity and cross protection and the antibodies in the sera and mucosal sites were long lived [53, 54] .
In conclusion, our findings revealed that the mucosal immunization of mice with recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated sM2 can induce systemic and local, as well as cellmediated, immune responses against divergent influenza virus subtypes. Thus, the recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1conjugated consensus sM2 mucosal vaccine may be a promising vaccine candidate for influenza pandemic preparedness. | What did this study show? | {
"answer_start": [
44663
],
"text": [
"recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-sM2 induced long-lasting immunity and conferred protection against lethal infections by influenza"
]
} | false |
279 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viroporin 3a Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361828/
SHA: f02d0c1e8b0109648e578662dc250abe349a033c
Authors: Chen, I-Yin; Moriyama, Miyu; Chang, Ming-Fu; Ichinohe, Takeshi
Date: 2019-01-29
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00050
License: cc-by
Abstract: Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-18. We previously showed that influenza virus M2 or encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 2B proteins stimulate IL-1β secretion following activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, the mechanism by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we provide direct evidence that SARS-CoV 3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages. SARS-CoV 3a was sufficient to cause the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The ion channel activity of the 3a protein was essential for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. While cells uninfected or infected with a lentivirus expressing a 3a protein defective in ion channel activity expressed NLRP3 uniformly throughout the cytoplasm, NLRP3 was redistributed to the perinuclear space in cells infected with a lentivirus expressing the 3a protein. K(+) efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species were important for SARS-CoV 3a-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These results highlight the importance of viroporins, transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins, in virus-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation.
Text: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a member of the genus Betacoronavirus within the family Coronaviridae, is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 30 kb in length. The 5 two-thirds of the genome encodes large polyprotein precursors, open reading frame (ORF) 1 and ORF1b, which are proteolytically cleaved to generate 16 non-structural proteins (Tan et al., 2005) . The 3 one-third of the genome encodes four structural proteins, spike (S), envelope (E), matrix (M) and nucleocapsid (N), and non-structural proteins, along with a set of accessory proteins (3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, and 9b) (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005; Tan et al., 2005) . SARS-CoV is the etiological agent of SARS (Drosten et al., 2003; Fouchier et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003; Kuiken et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003) . At least 8,098 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection, with a fatality rate of 9.6%, were reported to the World Health Organization from November 2002 to July 2003. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, were detected in autopsy tissues from SARS patients (He et al., 2006) . Although dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in lung injury and the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood.
The innate immune systems utilizes pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Medzhitov, 2001; Kawai and Akira, 2010) . Recognition of virus infection plays an important role in limiting virus replication at the early stages of infection. Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) is activated by a wide variety of stimuli, including virus infection (Bauernfeind et al., 2011) . Four models describing activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome have been proposed thus far (Hornung and Latz, 2010; Schroder et al., 2010; Tschopp and Schroder, 2010) . First, the disturbances in intracellular ionic concentrations, including K + efflux and Ca 2+ influx, play an important role (Fernandes-Alnemri et al., 2007; Petrilli et al., 2007; Arlehamn et al., 2010; Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Murakami et al., 2012; Munoz-Planillo et al., 2013) . Second, cathepsin B and L, which are specific lysosomal cysteine proteases, are though to play a role after phagocytosis of cholesterol crystals (Duewell et al., 2010) , fibrillar peptide amyloid-beta , silica crystals, and aluminum salts . Third is the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or mitochondrial DNA from damaged mitochondria (Zhou et al., , 2011 Nakahira et al., 2011; Shimada et al., 2012) . Finally, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Upon activation, the NLRP3 is recruited to the mitochondria via association with mitochondrial antiviral signaling (MAVS) or mitofusin 2 expressed on the outer mitochondrial membrane Subramanian et al., 2013) ; these molecules then recruit the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC) and pro-caspase-1 to form the NLRP3 inflammasome. This event activates the downstream molecule, caspase-1, which catalyzes the proteolytic processing of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms and stimulates their secretion (Kayagaki et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015) .
It is increasingly evident that NLRP3 detects RNA viruses by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) , transmembrane pore-forming proteins, encoded by certain RNA viruses; these proteins alter membrane permeability to ions by forming membrane channels (Tan et al., 2005; Chen and Ichinohe, 2015) . A recent study shows that the SARS-CoV E protein, which comprise only 76 amino acids, forms Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . Although the E and 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, which comprise 274 amino acids and contain three transmembrane domains (Zeng et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006) , are thought to act as Na + /K + and K + channels, respectively (Wilson et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2007; Parthasarathy et al., 2008; Pervushin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011) , the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we examined the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Six-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Committees of the Institute of Medical Science (The University of Tokyo).
Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) were prepared as described previously (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . In brief, bone marrow was obtained from the tibia and femur by flushing with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Nacalai Tesque). Bone marrow cells were cultured for 5 days in DMEM supplemented with 30% L929 cell supernatant containing macrophage colony-stimulating factor, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and L-glutamine (2 mM) at 37 • C/5% CO 2 . HEK293FT cells (a human embryonic kidney cell line) and HeLa cells (a human epithelial carcinoma cell line) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque). MDCK cells (Madin-Darby canine kidney cells) and HT-1080 cells (a human fibrosarcoma cell line) were grown in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM; Nacalai Tesque) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque).
Influenza A virus strain A/PR8 (H1N1) was grown at 35 • C for 2 days in the allantoic cavities of 10-day-old fertile chicken eggs (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . The viral titer was quantified in a standard plaque assay using MDCK cells (Pang et al., 2013) .
Plasmids cDNAs encoding the E and M proteins of SARS-CoV Frankfurt 1 strain (Matsuyama et al., 2005) were obtained by reverse transcription and PCR of total RNA extracted from SARS-CoVinfected Vero cells, followed by PCR amplification using specific primers. pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His was provided by Ming-Fu Chang (National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan). To generate the plasmids pLenti6-E-V5His, pLenti6-3a-V5His, and pLenti-M-V5His, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets and then ligated into pLenti6-TOPO vectors (Invitrogen). To generate plasmids pCA7-flag-E, pCA7-flag-3a, and pCA7flag-M, pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-3a, and pCA7-HA-M, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets, digested with EcoR I and Not I, and subcloned into the EcoR I-Not I sites of the pCA7-flag-ASC plasmid or pCA7-HA-M2 plasmid, respectively (Ito et al., 2012) . To construct plasmids expressing the E mutant V25F, the mutated E fragments were amplified by inverse PCR with wildtype E-containing plasmids and specific primer sets. The PCR products were cleaved by Dpn I, ligated in a ligase-and T4 kinase-containing reaction and then transformed into DH5α competent cells (TOYOBO). To construct plasmids expressing the 3a mutant 3a-CS, fragments were amplified from wildtype 3a-containing plasmids using 3a-specific primer sets and transformed as described above.
HEK293FT cells were seeded in 24-well cluster plates and transfected with 1 µg pLenti6-E/3a/M-V5His, pLenti-GFP (green fluorescent protein), or pLenti-M2 using polyethylenimine (PEI) Max. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were lysed with RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 1% NP-40, 0.05% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM EDTA). And the lysates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) followed by electroblotting onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. The membranes were incubated over night with mouse anti-V5-tag (R960-25, Invitrogen), mouse anti-influenza A virus M2 (14C2, Abcam), mouse anti-GFP (GF200, Nacalai Tesque), or rabbit antitubulin (DM1A, Santa Cruz) antibodies, followed by horseradish peroxide-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Immuno Research Laboratories) or anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen). After washing 3 times with washing buffer (0.05% Tween-20/PBS), the membranes were exposed using Chemi-Lumi One Super (Nacalai Tesque), and the chemiluminescent signals were captured by an ImageQuant LAS-4000 mini apparatus (GE Healthcare).
To generate lentiviruses expressing V5-tagged SARS-CoV E, 3a, and M proteins, the full-length cDNA encoding each viral protein was cloned into the pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) using the following primers: SARS-CoV E forward, 5 -caccatgtactcattcgtttcgga-3 , and reverse, 5 -gaccagaagatcaggaactc-3 ; SARS-CoV 3a forward, 5caccatggatttgtttatgagatt-3 , and reverse, 5 -caaaggcacgctagtagtcg-3 ; SARS-CoV M forward, 5 -caccatggcagacaacggtactat-3 , and reverse, 5 -ctgtactagcaaagcaatat-3 . Sub-confluent monolayers of HEK293FT cells seeded in a collagen-coated dish (10 cm in diameter) were transfected with 3 µg of pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector expressing each viral protein or EGFP together with ViraPower Packaging Mix (Invitrogen) using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The supernatants containing lentiviruses were harvested and filtered through a 0.45 µm filter (Millipore) at 72-96 h post-transfection (Ito et al., 2012) . The lentiviral titer was then quantified using HT-1080 cells as described previously .
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were plated at a density of 8 × 10 5 in 24-well plate and infected with A/PR8 influenza virus or lentivirus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 or 0.2 for 1 h, respectively. Then, BMMs were stimulated with 1 µg/ml of LPS and cultured for additional 23 h in complete media. Supernatants were collected at 24 h post-infection and centrifuged to remove cell debris. The amount of IL-1β in the supernatants was measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using paired antibodies (eBioscience) (Ichinohe et al., 2010 .
To clarify the cellular localization of the wild-type and mutant 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-flag-3a or pCD7-flag-3a-CS together with 0.5 µg of ER-mCherry or DsRed-Golgi (Ito et al., 2012) . At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing with PBS and blocking with 4% BSA/PBS, the cells were incubated with a mouse anti-flag antibody (M2, Sigma) followed by incubation with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies).
To observe the cellular distribution of NLRP3 in the E-or 3a-expressing cells, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-EV25F, pCA7-HA-3a, pCA7-HA-3a-CS, or pCA7 control vector together with 0.5 µg of pCA7-NLRP3. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed and permeabilized with 4% paraformaldehyde and 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing and blocking, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti-HA (561, MBL) and mouse anti-NLRP3 (Cryo-2; AdipoGen) antibodies, followed by Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) and Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies). Fluorescent signals were observed by confocal microscopy (A1R + , Nikon).
Statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed Student's t-test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
We previously demonstrated that the influenza virus M2 protein (a proton-selective ion channel), its H37G mutant (which has lost its proton selectivity and enables the transport of other cations such as Na + and K + ), and the EMCV 2B protein (a Ca 2+ channel) stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV E protein acts as a Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels that activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto- Torres et al., 2015) . The fact that 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as viroporin prompted us to examine whether it also triggers inflammasome activation. Thus, we first generated lentivirus plasmids expressing V5-tagged proteins and confirmed their expression in HEK293FT cells by immunoblot analysis (Figures 1A-C) . We next transduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed BMMs with the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, 3a, M, influenza virus M2, or EMCV 2B proteins. Consistent with previous reports (Ichinohe et al., Figure 1D) . Similarly, the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins stimulated IL-1β release from LPS-primed BMMs ( Figure 1D) . Furthermore, IL-1β secretion from LPSprimed BMMs co-infected with E-and 3a-expressing lentiviruses was significantly higher than that from SARS-CoV E-expressing lentivirus-infected cells ( Figure 1E) . These data indicated that the expression of SARS-CoV viroporin 3a is sufficient to stimulate IL-1β secretion by LPS-primed BMMs.
Previous studies demonstrated that the N-terminal 40 amino acids of the SARS-CoV E protein are important for ion channel formation, and that mutations N15A and V25F [located in the transmembrane domain (from amino acid residues 7-38)] prevent ion conductivity (Wilson et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2007; Verdia-Baguena et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV 3a protein contains a cysteine-rich domain (amino acid residues 127-133) that is involved in the formation of a homodimer to generate the ion channel (Lu et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009) . Thus, mutation of the cysteine-rich domain blocks the ion conductivity by the 3a protein (Chan et al., 2009) . To this end, we substituted amino acids Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133 within the cysteine-rich domain of the SARS-CoV 3a protein with serine to generate a lentivirus expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutant, 3a-CS (Chan et al., 2009; Figure 2A) . To test whether the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is required to stimulate secretion of IL-1β, we transduced LPSprimed BMMs with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, V25F, 3a, 3a-CS, or M proteins. Consistent with a previous report (Nieto -Torres et al., 2015) , we found that the V25F mutant lentivirus failed to stimulate IL-1β release from BMMs ( Figure 2B) . Notably, the 3a-CS mutant completely abrogated IL-1β secretion (Figure 2B) , suggesting that the ion channel activity of the 3a protein is required for SARS-CoV 3a-induced IL-1β secretion.
FIGURE 4 | NLRP3 inflammasome activation by SARS-CoV 3a. HeLa cells were transfected with the expression plasmid encoding NLRP3 and that encoding HA-tagged SARS-CoV 3a, 3a-CS, E, or V25F, and by with a confocal microscope. Scale bars, 10 µm. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Next, we determined the subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV 3a protein using confocal microscopy. When the SARS-CoV Cell-free supernatants were collected at 24 h (lentiviruses) or 6 h (ATP) post-infection or stimulation, and analyzed for IL-1β by ELISA. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments, and indicate the mean ± SD; * * P < 0.01 and * * * P < 0.001.
3a protein was expressed in HeLa cells, we observed two main distribution patterns. Consistent with previous reports (Yu et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2005) , the 3a protein localized to the Golgi apparatus ( Figure 3A ). In addition, the 3a proteins concentrated in spot structures, which mainly localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (Figure 3B ). By contrast, the 3a-CS mutant was concentrated in the Golgi apparatus rather than in the ER and did not form spot structures (Figures 3A,B) . We next examined the intracellular localization of NLRP3. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome led to a redistribution from the cytosol to the perinuclear space, a process considered as a hallmark of NLRP3 activation (Zhou et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2013; Moriyama et al., 2016) . Although cells expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutants 3a-CS or V25F uniformly expressed NLRP3 throughout the cytoplasm, it was redistributed to the perinuclear region in SARS-CoV 3a-or E-expressing cells (Figure 4) . Together, these data provide evidence that the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for triggering the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Both K + Efflux and ROS Production Are Involved in the IL-1β Release Induced by the SARS-CoV 3a Protein
Finally, we investigated the mechanism by which SARS-CoV 3a triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A previous study showed that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) . In addition, K + efflux is a well-known activator of the NLRP3 inflammasome (Mariathasan et al., 2006; Petrilli et al., 2007) . These observations prompted us to examine whether K + efflux is required for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. To this end, BMMs in K + -rich medium were infected with influenza A virus or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins. In agreement with a previous result (Ichinohe et al., 2010) , we found that IL-1β secretion caused by influenza virus was completely blocked when the extracellular K + concentration was increased to 130 mM ( Figure 5A) . The inhibitory effect of the K + -rich medium was also observed when cells were stimulated with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins ( Figure 5B ). Since mitochondrial ROS are important for NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Nakahira et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011) , we next stimulated BMMs with extracellular ATP or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins in the presence or absence of the antioxidant, Mito-TEMPO, a scavenger that is specific for mitochondrial ROS Trnka et al., 2009) . As reported previously (Nakahira et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012) , treatment of BMMs with Mito-TEMPO completely blocked IL-1β secretion in response to ATP ( Figure 6A) . Similarly, IL-1β release induced by the SARS-CoV E and 3a proteins was significantly inhibited by Mito-TEMPO ( Figure 6B) . These observations indicate that the SARS-CoV 3a protein disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations and causes mitochondrial damages, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
In summary, we found that the ion channel activity of SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In addition, both K + efflux and mitochondrial ROS production are required for SARS-CoV 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion.
Thus far, several models have been proposed to explain NLRP3 inflammasome activation by RNA viruses. First, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Second, viroporins encoded by RNA viruses activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In the case of influenza virus, the proton-selective M2 ion channel in the acidic trans-Golgi network activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010) . Interestingly, an M2 mutant in which histidine was substituted with glycine at position 37 (H37G), causing loss of proton selectivity, enables transport of other cations (i.e., Na + and K + ), thereby leading to enhanced secretion of IL-1β from LPS-primed BMMs and dendritic cells when compared with the wild-type M2 protein.
In addition, the 2B proteins of EMCV, poliovirus, enterovirus 71 (EV71), and human rhinovirus (a member of the Picornaviridae family) triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inducing Ca 2+ flux from the ER and Golgi compartments (Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013) . Furthermore, hepatitis C virus stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β production though its p7 viroporin (Negash et al., 2013; Farag et al., 2017) . Third, a recent study has demonstrated that the 3D protein of EV71 directly interacts with NLRP3 to facilitate the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasome complex (Wang et al., 2017) .
In the case of SARS-CoV, the viroporin E forms forms Ca 2+permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In addition, another viroporin 3a was found to induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Yue et al., 2018) . Although alanine substitution at Cys-133, which is required for dimer or tetramer formation (Lu et al., 2006) , still allows activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by interacting with caspase-1 (Yue et al., 2018) , the ion channel activity-loss mutant 3a-CS (Cys-to-Ser substitution at positions Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133) (Chan et al., 2009 ) completely abrogated IL-1β secretion from LPS-primed BMMs, suggesting that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV has the ability to induce the NLRP3 inflammasome activation by multiple mechanisms. Previous studies show that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV is localized to the plasma membrane (Minakshi and Padhan, 2014) and acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) , thereby (presumably) stimulating the K + efflux at the plasma membrane. Indeed, we found that IL-1β secretion caused by the 3a protein was significantly inhibited when the extracellular K + concentration increased to 130 mM. Although it remains unclear whether another viroporin 8a of SARS-CoV (Castano-Rodriguez et al., 2018) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, these data highlights the importance of viroporins in SARS-CoV-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A better understanding of the mechanism that governs the NLRP3 inflammasome will facilitate the development of more effective interventions for the treatment of infectious diseases and increase our understanding of viral pathogenesis. | What regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines? | {
"answer_start": [
340
],
"text": [
"Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3"
]
} | false |
280 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viroporin 3a Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361828/
SHA: f02d0c1e8b0109648e578662dc250abe349a033c
Authors: Chen, I-Yin; Moriyama, Miyu; Chang, Ming-Fu; Ichinohe, Takeshi
Date: 2019-01-29
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00050
License: cc-by
Abstract: Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-18. We previously showed that influenza virus M2 or encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 2B proteins stimulate IL-1β secretion following activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, the mechanism by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we provide direct evidence that SARS-CoV 3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages. SARS-CoV 3a was sufficient to cause the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The ion channel activity of the 3a protein was essential for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. While cells uninfected or infected with a lentivirus expressing a 3a protein defective in ion channel activity expressed NLRP3 uniformly throughout the cytoplasm, NLRP3 was redistributed to the perinuclear space in cells infected with a lentivirus expressing the 3a protein. K(+) efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species were important for SARS-CoV 3a-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These results highlight the importance of viroporins, transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins, in virus-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation.
Text: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a member of the genus Betacoronavirus within the family Coronaviridae, is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 30 kb in length. The 5 two-thirds of the genome encodes large polyprotein precursors, open reading frame (ORF) 1 and ORF1b, which are proteolytically cleaved to generate 16 non-structural proteins (Tan et al., 2005) . The 3 one-third of the genome encodes four structural proteins, spike (S), envelope (E), matrix (M) and nucleocapsid (N), and non-structural proteins, along with a set of accessory proteins (3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, and 9b) (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005; Tan et al., 2005) . SARS-CoV is the etiological agent of SARS (Drosten et al., 2003; Fouchier et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003; Kuiken et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003) . At least 8,098 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection, with a fatality rate of 9.6%, were reported to the World Health Organization from November 2002 to July 2003. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, were detected in autopsy tissues from SARS patients (He et al., 2006) . Although dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in lung injury and the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood.
The innate immune systems utilizes pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Medzhitov, 2001; Kawai and Akira, 2010) . Recognition of virus infection plays an important role in limiting virus replication at the early stages of infection. Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) is activated by a wide variety of stimuli, including virus infection (Bauernfeind et al., 2011) . Four models describing activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome have been proposed thus far (Hornung and Latz, 2010; Schroder et al., 2010; Tschopp and Schroder, 2010) . First, the disturbances in intracellular ionic concentrations, including K + efflux and Ca 2+ influx, play an important role (Fernandes-Alnemri et al., 2007; Petrilli et al., 2007; Arlehamn et al., 2010; Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Murakami et al., 2012; Munoz-Planillo et al., 2013) . Second, cathepsin B and L, which are specific lysosomal cysteine proteases, are though to play a role after phagocytosis of cholesterol crystals (Duewell et al., 2010) , fibrillar peptide amyloid-beta , silica crystals, and aluminum salts . Third is the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or mitochondrial DNA from damaged mitochondria (Zhou et al., , 2011 Nakahira et al., 2011; Shimada et al., 2012) . Finally, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Upon activation, the NLRP3 is recruited to the mitochondria via association with mitochondrial antiviral signaling (MAVS) or mitofusin 2 expressed on the outer mitochondrial membrane Subramanian et al., 2013) ; these molecules then recruit the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC) and pro-caspase-1 to form the NLRP3 inflammasome. This event activates the downstream molecule, caspase-1, which catalyzes the proteolytic processing of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms and stimulates their secretion (Kayagaki et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015) .
It is increasingly evident that NLRP3 detects RNA viruses by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) , transmembrane pore-forming proteins, encoded by certain RNA viruses; these proteins alter membrane permeability to ions by forming membrane channels (Tan et al., 2005; Chen and Ichinohe, 2015) . A recent study shows that the SARS-CoV E protein, which comprise only 76 amino acids, forms Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . Although the E and 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, which comprise 274 amino acids and contain three transmembrane domains (Zeng et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006) , are thought to act as Na + /K + and K + channels, respectively (Wilson et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2007; Parthasarathy et al., 2008; Pervushin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011) , the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we examined the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Six-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Committees of the Institute of Medical Science (The University of Tokyo).
Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) were prepared as described previously (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . In brief, bone marrow was obtained from the tibia and femur by flushing with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Nacalai Tesque). Bone marrow cells were cultured for 5 days in DMEM supplemented with 30% L929 cell supernatant containing macrophage colony-stimulating factor, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and L-glutamine (2 mM) at 37 • C/5% CO 2 . HEK293FT cells (a human embryonic kidney cell line) and HeLa cells (a human epithelial carcinoma cell line) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque). MDCK cells (Madin-Darby canine kidney cells) and HT-1080 cells (a human fibrosarcoma cell line) were grown in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM; Nacalai Tesque) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque).
Influenza A virus strain A/PR8 (H1N1) was grown at 35 • C for 2 days in the allantoic cavities of 10-day-old fertile chicken eggs (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . The viral titer was quantified in a standard plaque assay using MDCK cells (Pang et al., 2013) .
Plasmids cDNAs encoding the E and M proteins of SARS-CoV Frankfurt 1 strain (Matsuyama et al., 2005) were obtained by reverse transcription and PCR of total RNA extracted from SARS-CoVinfected Vero cells, followed by PCR amplification using specific primers. pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His was provided by Ming-Fu Chang (National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan). To generate the plasmids pLenti6-E-V5His, pLenti6-3a-V5His, and pLenti-M-V5His, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets and then ligated into pLenti6-TOPO vectors (Invitrogen). To generate plasmids pCA7-flag-E, pCA7-flag-3a, and pCA7flag-M, pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-3a, and pCA7-HA-M, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets, digested with EcoR I and Not I, and subcloned into the EcoR I-Not I sites of the pCA7-flag-ASC plasmid or pCA7-HA-M2 plasmid, respectively (Ito et al., 2012) . To construct plasmids expressing the E mutant V25F, the mutated E fragments were amplified by inverse PCR with wildtype E-containing plasmids and specific primer sets. The PCR products were cleaved by Dpn I, ligated in a ligase-and T4 kinase-containing reaction and then transformed into DH5α competent cells (TOYOBO). To construct plasmids expressing the 3a mutant 3a-CS, fragments were amplified from wildtype 3a-containing plasmids using 3a-specific primer sets and transformed as described above.
HEK293FT cells were seeded in 24-well cluster plates and transfected with 1 µg pLenti6-E/3a/M-V5His, pLenti-GFP (green fluorescent protein), or pLenti-M2 using polyethylenimine (PEI) Max. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were lysed with RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 1% NP-40, 0.05% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM EDTA). And the lysates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) followed by electroblotting onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. The membranes were incubated over night with mouse anti-V5-tag (R960-25, Invitrogen), mouse anti-influenza A virus M2 (14C2, Abcam), mouse anti-GFP (GF200, Nacalai Tesque), or rabbit antitubulin (DM1A, Santa Cruz) antibodies, followed by horseradish peroxide-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Immuno Research Laboratories) or anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen). After washing 3 times with washing buffer (0.05% Tween-20/PBS), the membranes were exposed using Chemi-Lumi One Super (Nacalai Tesque), and the chemiluminescent signals were captured by an ImageQuant LAS-4000 mini apparatus (GE Healthcare).
To generate lentiviruses expressing V5-tagged SARS-CoV E, 3a, and M proteins, the full-length cDNA encoding each viral protein was cloned into the pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) using the following primers: SARS-CoV E forward, 5 -caccatgtactcattcgtttcgga-3 , and reverse, 5 -gaccagaagatcaggaactc-3 ; SARS-CoV 3a forward, 5caccatggatttgtttatgagatt-3 , and reverse, 5 -caaaggcacgctagtagtcg-3 ; SARS-CoV M forward, 5 -caccatggcagacaacggtactat-3 , and reverse, 5 -ctgtactagcaaagcaatat-3 . Sub-confluent monolayers of HEK293FT cells seeded in a collagen-coated dish (10 cm in diameter) were transfected with 3 µg of pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector expressing each viral protein or EGFP together with ViraPower Packaging Mix (Invitrogen) using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The supernatants containing lentiviruses were harvested and filtered through a 0.45 µm filter (Millipore) at 72-96 h post-transfection (Ito et al., 2012) . The lentiviral titer was then quantified using HT-1080 cells as described previously .
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were plated at a density of 8 × 10 5 in 24-well plate and infected with A/PR8 influenza virus or lentivirus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 or 0.2 for 1 h, respectively. Then, BMMs were stimulated with 1 µg/ml of LPS and cultured for additional 23 h in complete media. Supernatants were collected at 24 h post-infection and centrifuged to remove cell debris. The amount of IL-1β in the supernatants was measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using paired antibodies (eBioscience) (Ichinohe et al., 2010 .
To clarify the cellular localization of the wild-type and mutant 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-flag-3a or pCD7-flag-3a-CS together with 0.5 µg of ER-mCherry or DsRed-Golgi (Ito et al., 2012) . At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing with PBS and blocking with 4% BSA/PBS, the cells were incubated with a mouse anti-flag antibody (M2, Sigma) followed by incubation with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies).
To observe the cellular distribution of NLRP3 in the E-or 3a-expressing cells, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-EV25F, pCA7-HA-3a, pCA7-HA-3a-CS, or pCA7 control vector together with 0.5 µg of pCA7-NLRP3. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed and permeabilized with 4% paraformaldehyde and 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing and blocking, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti-HA (561, MBL) and mouse anti-NLRP3 (Cryo-2; AdipoGen) antibodies, followed by Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) and Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies). Fluorescent signals were observed by confocal microscopy (A1R + , Nikon).
Statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed Student's t-test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
We previously demonstrated that the influenza virus M2 protein (a proton-selective ion channel), its H37G mutant (which has lost its proton selectivity and enables the transport of other cations such as Na + and K + ), and the EMCV 2B protein (a Ca 2+ channel) stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV E protein acts as a Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels that activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto- Torres et al., 2015) . The fact that 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as viroporin prompted us to examine whether it also triggers inflammasome activation. Thus, we first generated lentivirus plasmids expressing V5-tagged proteins and confirmed their expression in HEK293FT cells by immunoblot analysis (Figures 1A-C) . We next transduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed BMMs with the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, 3a, M, influenza virus M2, or EMCV 2B proteins. Consistent with previous reports (Ichinohe et al., Figure 1D) . Similarly, the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins stimulated IL-1β release from LPS-primed BMMs ( Figure 1D) . Furthermore, IL-1β secretion from LPSprimed BMMs co-infected with E-and 3a-expressing lentiviruses was significantly higher than that from SARS-CoV E-expressing lentivirus-infected cells ( Figure 1E) . These data indicated that the expression of SARS-CoV viroporin 3a is sufficient to stimulate IL-1β secretion by LPS-primed BMMs.
Previous studies demonstrated that the N-terminal 40 amino acids of the SARS-CoV E protein are important for ion channel formation, and that mutations N15A and V25F [located in the transmembrane domain (from amino acid residues 7-38)] prevent ion conductivity (Wilson et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2007; Verdia-Baguena et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV 3a protein contains a cysteine-rich domain (amino acid residues 127-133) that is involved in the formation of a homodimer to generate the ion channel (Lu et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009) . Thus, mutation of the cysteine-rich domain blocks the ion conductivity by the 3a protein (Chan et al., 2009) . To this end, we substituted amino acids Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133 within the cysteine-rich domain of the SARS-CoV 3a protein with serine to generate a lentivirus expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutant, 3a-CS (Chan et al., 2009; Figure 2A) . To test whether the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is required to stimulate secretion of IL-1β, we transduced LPSprimed BMMs with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, V25F, 3a, 3a-CS, or M proteins. Consistent with a previous report (Nieto -Torres et al., 2015) , we found that the V25F mutant lentivirus failed to stimulate IL-1β release from BMMs ( Figure 2B) . Notably, the 3a-CS mutant completely abrogated IL-1β secretion (Figure 2B) , suggesting that the ion channel activity of the 3a protein is required for SARS-CoV 3a-induced IL-1β secretion.
FIGURE 4 | NLRP3 inflammasome activation by SARS-CoV 3a. HeLa cells were transfected with the expression plasmid encoding NLRP3 and that encoding HA-tagged SARS-CoV 3a, 3a-CS, E, or V25F, and by with a confocal microscope. Scale bars, 10 µm. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Next, we determined the subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV 3a protein using confocal microscopy. When the SARS-CoV Cell-free supernatants were collected at 24 h (lentiviruses) or 6 h (ATP) post-infection or stimulation, and analyzed for IL-1β by ELISA. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments, and indicate the mean ± SD; * * P < 0.01 and * * * P < 0.001.
3a protein was expressed in HeLa cells, we observed two main distribution patterns. Consistent with previous reports (Yu et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2005) , the 3a protein localized to the Golgi apparatus ( Figure 3A ). In addition, the 3a proteins concentrated in spot structures, which mainly localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (Figure 3B ). By contrast, the 3a-CS mutant was concentrated in the Golgi apparatus rather than in the ER and did not form spot structures (Figures 3A,B) . We next examined the intracellular localization of NLRP3. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome led to a redistribution from the cytosol to the perinuclear space, a process considered as a hallmark of NLRP3 activation (Zhou et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2013; Moriyama et al., 2016) . Although cells expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutants 3a-CS or V25F uniformly expressed NLRP3 throughout the cytoplasm, it was redistributed to the perinuclear region in SARS-CoV 3a-or E-expressing cells (Figure 4) . Together, these data provide evidence that the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for triggering the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Both K + Efflux and ROS Production Are Involved in the IL-1β Release Induced by the SARS-CoV 3a Protein
Finally, we investigated the mechanism by which SARS-CoV 3a triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A previous study showed that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) . In addition, K + efflux is a well-known activator of the NLRP3 inflammasome (Mariathasan et al., 2006; Petrilli et al., 2007) . These observations prompted us to examine whether K + efflux is required for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. To this end, BMMs in K + -rich medium were infected with influenza A virus or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins. In agreement with a previous result (Ichinohe et al., 2010) , we found that IL-1β secretion caused by influenza virus was completely blocked when the extracellular K + concentration was increased to 130 mM ( Figure 5A) . The inhibitory effect of the K + -rich medium was also observed when cells were stimulated with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins ( Figure 5B ). Since mitochondrial ROS are important for NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Nakahira et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011) , we next stimulated BMMs with extracellular ATP or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins in the presence or absence of the antioxidant, Mito-TEMPO, a scavenger that is specific for mitochondrial ROS Trnka et al., 2009) . As reported previously (Nakahira et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012) , treatment of BMMs with Mito-TEMPO completely blocked IL-1β secretion in response to ATP ( Figure 6A) . Similarly, IL-1β release induced by the SARS-CoV E and 3a proteins was significantly inhibited by Mito-TEMPO ( Figure 6B) . These observations indicate that the SARS-CoV 3a protein disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations and causes mitochondrial damages, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
In summary, we found that the ion channel activity of SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In addition, both K + efflux and mitochondrial ROS production are required for SARS-CoV 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion.
Thus far, several models have been proposed to explain NLRP3 inflammasome activation by RNA viruses. First, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Second, viroporins encoded by RNA viruses activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In the case of influenza virus, the proton-selective M2 ion channel in the acidic trans-Golgi network activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010) . Interestingly, an M2 mutant in which histidine was substituted with glycine at position 37 (H37G), causing loss of proton selectivity, enables transport of other cations (i.e., Na + and K + ), thereby leading to enhanced secretion of IL-1β from LPS-primed BMMs and dendritic cells when compared with the wild-type M2 protein.
In addition, the 2B proteins of EMCV, poliovirus, enterovirus 71 (EV71), and human rhinovirus (a member of the Picornaviridae family) triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inducing Ca 2+ flux from the ER and Golgi compartments (Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013) . Furthermore, hepatitis C virus stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β production though its p7 viroporin (Negash et al., 2013; Farag et al., 2017) . Third, a recent study has demonstrated that the 3D protein of EV71 directly interacts with NLRP3 to facilitate the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasome complex (Wang et al., 2017) .
In the case of SARS-CoV, the viroporin E forms forms Ca 2+permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In addition, another viroporin 3a was found to induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Yue et al., 2018) . Although alanine substitution at Cys-133, which is required for dimer or tetramer formation (Lu et al., 2006) , still allows activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by interacting with caspase-1 (Yue et al., 2018) , the ion channel activity-loss mutant 3a-CS (Cys-to-Ser substitution at positions Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133) (Chan et al., 2009 ) completely abrogated IL-1β secretion from LPS-primed BMMs, suggesting that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV has the ability to induce the NLRP3 inflammasome activation by multiple mechanisms. Previous studies show that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV is localized to the plasma membrane (Minakshi and Padhan, 2014) and acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) , thereby (presumably) stimulating the K + efflux at the plasma membrane. Indeed, we found that IL-1β secretion caused by the 3a protein was significantly inhibited when the extracellular K + concentration increased to 130 mM. Although it remains unclear whether another viroporin 8a of SARS-CoV (Castano-Rodriguez et al., 2018) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, these data highlights the importance of viroporins in SARS-CoV-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A better understanding of the mechanism that governs the NLRP3 inflammasome will facilitate the development of more effective interventions for the treatment of infectious diseases and increase our understanding of viral pathogenesis. | Where does the NLRP3 inflammasome activate after a SARS-CoV infection? | {
"answer_start": [
889
],
"text": [
"in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages"
]
} | false |
281 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viroporin 3a Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361828/
SHA: f02d0c1e8b0109648e578662dc250abe349a033c
Authors: Chen, I-Yin; Moriyama, Miyu; Chang, Ming-Fu; Ichinohe, Takeshi
Date: 2019-01-29
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00050
License: cc-by
Abstract: Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-18. We previously showed that influenza virus M2 or encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 2B proteins stimulate IL-1β secretion following activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, the mechanism by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we provide direct evidence that SARS-CoV 3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages. SARS-CoV 3a was sufficient to cause the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The ion channel activity of the 3a protein was essential for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. While cells uninfected or infected with a lentivirus expressing a 3a protein defective in ion channel activity expressed NLRP3 uniformly throughout the cytoplasm, NLRP3 was redistributed to the perinuclear space in cells infected with a lentivirus expressing the 3a protein. K(+) efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species were important for SARS-CoV 3a-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These results highlight the importance of viroporins, transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins, in virus-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation.
Text: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a member of the genus Betacoronavirus within the family Coronaviridae, is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 30 kb in length. The 5 two-thirds of the genome encodes large polyprotein precursors, open reading frame (ORF) 1 and ORF1b, which are proteolytically cleaved to generate 16 non-structural proteins (Tan et al., 2005) . The 3 one-third of the genome encodes four structural proteins, spike (S), envelope (E), matrix (M) and nucleocapsid (N), and non-structural proteins, along with a set of accessory proteins (3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, and 9b) (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005; Tan et al., 2005) . SARS-CoV is the etiological agent of SARS (Drosten et al., 2003; Fouchier et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003; Kuiken et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003) . At least 8,098 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection, with a fatality rate of 9.6%, were reported to the World Health Organization from November 2002 to July 2003. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, were detected in autopsy tissues from SARS patients (He et al., 2006) . Although dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in lung injury and the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood.
The innate immune systems utilizes pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Medzhitov, 2001; Kawai and Akira, 2010) . Recognition of virus infection plays an important role in limiting virus replication at the early stages of infection. Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) is activated by a wide variety of stimuli, including virus infection (Bauernfeind et al., 2011) . Four models describing activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome have been proposed thus far (Hornung and Latz, 2010; Schroder et al., 2010; Tschopp and Schroder, 2010) . First, the disturbances in intracellular ionic concentrations, including K + efflux and Ca 2+ influx, play an important role (Fernandes-Alnemri et al., 2007; Petrilli et al., 2007; Arlehamn et al., 2010; Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Murakami et al., 2012; Munoz-Planillo et al., 2013) . Second, cathepsin B and L, which are specific lysosomal cysteine proteases, are though to play a role after phagocytosis of cholesterol crystals (Duewell et al., 2010) , fibrillar peptide amyloid-beta , silica crystals, and aluminum salts . Third is the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or mitochondrial DNA from damaged mitochondria (Zhou et al., , 2011 Nakahira et al., 2011; Shimada et al., 2012) . Finally, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Upon activation, the NLRP3 is recruited to the mitochondria via association with mitochondrial antiviral signaling (MAVS) or mitofusin 2 expressed on the outer mitochondrial membrane Subramanian et al., 2013) ; these molecules then recruit the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC) and pro-caspase-1 to form the NLRP3 inflammasome. This event activates the downstream molecule, caspase-1, which catalyzes the proteolytic processing of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms and stimulates their secretion (Kayagaki et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015) .
It is increasingly evident that NLRP3 detects RNA viruses by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) , transmembrane pore-forming proteins, encoded by certain RNA viruses; these proteins alter membrane permeability to ions by forming membrane channels (Tan et al., 2005; Chen and Ichinohe, 2015) . A recent study shows that the SARS-CoV E protein, which comprise only 76 amino acids, forms Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . Although the E and 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, which comprise 274 amino acids and contain three transmembrane domains (Zeng et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006) , are thought to act as Na + /K + and K + channels, respectively (Wilson et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2007; Parthasarathy et al., 2008; Pervushin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011) , the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we examined the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Six-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Committees of the Institute of Medical Science (The University of Tokyo).
Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) were prepared as described previously (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . In brief, bone marrow was obtained from the tibia and femur by flushing with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Nacalai Tesque). Bone marrow cells were cultured for 5 days in DMEM supplemented with 30% L929 cell supernatant containing macrophage colony-stimulating factor, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and L-glutamine (2 mM) at 37 • C/5% CO 2 . HEK293FT cells (a human embryonic kidney cell line) and HeLa cells (a human epithelial carcinoma cell line) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque). MDCK cells (Madin-Darby canine kidney cells) and HT-1080 cells (a human fibrosarcoma cell line) were grown in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM; Nacalai Tesque) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque).
Influenza A virus strain A/PR8 (H1N1) was grown at 35 • C for 2 days in the allantoic cavities of 10-day-old fertile chicken eggs (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . The viral titer was quantified in a standard plaque assay using MDCK cells (Pang et al., 2013) .
Plasmids cDNAs encoding the E and M proteins of SARS-CoV Frankfurt 1 strain (Matsuyama et al., 2005) were obtained by reverse transcription and PCR of total RNA extracted from SARS-CoVinfected Vero cells, followed by PCR amplification using specific primers. pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His was provided by Ming-Fu Chang (National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan). To generate the plasmids pLenti6-E-V5His, pLenti6-3a-V5His, and pLenti-M-V5His, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets and then ligated into pLenti6-TOPO vectors (Invitrogen). To generate plasmids pCA7-flag-E, pCA7-flag-3a, and pCA7flag-M, pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-3a, and pCA7-HA-M, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets, digested with EcoR I and Not I, and subcloned into the EcoR I-Not I sites of the pCA7-flag-ASC plasmid or pCA7-HA-M2 plasmid, respectively (Ito et al., 2012) . To construct plasmids expressing the E mutant V25F, the mutated E fragments were amplified by inverse PCR with wildtype E-containing plasmids and specific primer sets. The PCR products were cleaved by Dpn I, ligated in a ligase-and T4 kinase-containing reaction and then transformed into DH5α competent cells (TOYOBO). To construct plasmids expressing the 3a mutant 3a-CS, fragments were amplified from wildtype 3a-containing plasmids using 3a-specific primer sets and transformed as described above.
HEK293FT cells were seeded in 24-well cluster plates and transfected with 1 µg pLenti6-E/3a/M-V5His, pLenti-GFP (green fluorescent protein), or pLenti-M2 using polyethylenimine (PEI) Max. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were lysed with RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 1% NP-40, 0.05% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM EDTA). And the lysates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) followed by electroblotting onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. The membranes were incubated over night with mouse anti-V5-tag (R960-25, Invitrogen), mouse anti-influenza A virus M2 (14C2, Abcam), mouse anti-GFP (GF200, Nacalai Tesque), or rabbit antitubulin (DM1A, Santa Cruz) antibodies, followed by horseradish peroxide-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Immuno Research Laboratories) or anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen). After washing 3 times with washing buffer (0.05% Tween-20/PBS), the membranes were exposed using Chemi-Lumi One Super (Nacalai Tesque), and the chemiluminescent signals were captured by an ImageQuant LAS-4000 mini apparatus (GE Healthcare).
To generate lentiviruses expressing V5-tagged SARS-CoV E, 3a, and M proteins, the full-length cDNA encoding each viral protein was cloned into the pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) using the following primers: SARS-CoV E forward, 5 -caccatgtactcattcgtttcgga-3 , and reverse, 5 -gaccagaagatcaggaactc-3 ; SARS-CoV 3a forward, 5caccatggatttgtttatgagatt-3 , and reverse, 5 -caaaggcacgctagtagtcg-3 ; SARS-CoV M forward, 5 -caccatggcagacaacggtactat-3 , and reverse, 5 -ctgtactagcaaagcaatat-3 . Sub-confluent monolayers of HEK293FT cells seeded in a collagen-coated dish (10 cm in diameter) were transfected with 3 µg of pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector expressing each viral protein or EGFP together with ViraPower Packaging Mix (Invitrogen) using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The supernatants containing lentiviruses were harvested and filtered through a 0.45 µm filter (Millipore) at 72-96 h post-transfection (Ito et al., 2012) . The lentiviral titer was then quantified using HT-1080 cells as described previously .
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were plated at a density of 8 × 10 5 in 24-well plate and infected with A/PR8 influenza virus or lentivirus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 or 0.2 for 1 h, respectively. Then, BMMs were stimulated with 1 µg/ml of LPS and cultured for additional 23 h in complete media. Supernatants were collected at 24 h post-infection and centrifuged to remove cell debris. The amount of IL-1β in the supernatants was measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using paired antibodies (eBioscience) (Ichinohe et al., 2010 .
To clarify the cellular localization of the wild-type and mutant 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-flag-3a or pCD7-flag-3a-CS together with 0.5 µg of ER-mCherry or DsRed-Golgi (Ito et al., 2012) . At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing with PBS and blocking with 4% BSA/PBS, the cells were incubated with a mouse anti-flag antibody (M2, Sigma) followed by incubation with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies).
To observe the cellular distribution of NLRP3 in the E-or 3a-expressing cells, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-EV25F, pCA7-HA-3a, pCA7-HA-3a-CS, or pCA7 control vector together with 0.5 µg of pCA7-NLRP3. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed and permeabilized with 4% paraformaldehyde and 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing and blocking, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti-HA (561, MBL) and mouse anti-NLRP3 (Cryo-2; AdipoGen) antibodies, followed by Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) and Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies). Fluorescent signals were observed by confocal microscopy (A1R + , Nikon).
Statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed Student's t-test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
We previously demonstrated that the influenza virus M2 protein (a proton-selective ion channel), its H37G mutant (which has lost its proton selectivity and enables the transport of other cations such as Na + and K + ), and the EMCV 2B protein (a Ca 2+ channel) stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV E protein acts as a Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels that activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto- Torres et al., 2015) . The fact that 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as viroporin prompted us to examine whether it also triggers inflammasome activation. Thus, we first generated lentivirus plasmids expressing V5-tagged proteins and confirmed their expression in HEK293FT cells by immunoblot analysis (Figures 1A-C) . We next transduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed BMMs with the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, 3a, M, influenza virus M2, or EMCV 2B proteins. Consistent with previous reports (Ichinohe et al., Figure 1D) . Similarly, the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins stimulated IL-1β release from LPS-primed BMMs ( Figure 1D) . Furthermore, IL-1β secretion from LPSprimed BMMs co-infected with E-and 3a-expressing lentiviruses was significantly higher than that from SARS-CoV E-expressing lentivirus-infected cells ( Figure 1E) . These data indicated that the expression of SARS-CoV viroporin 3a is sufficient to stimulate IL-1β secretion by LPS-primed BMMs.
Previous studies demonstrated that the N-terminal 40 amino acids of the SARS-CoV E protein are important for ion channel formation, and that mutations N15A and V25F [located in the transmembrane domain (from amino acid residues 7-38)] prevent ion conductivity (Wilson et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2007; Verdia-Baguena et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV 3a protein contains a cysteine-rich domain (amino acid residues 127-133) that is involved in the formation of a homodimer to generate the ion channel (Lu et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009) . Thus, mutation of the cysteine-rich domain blocks the ion conductivity by the 3a protein (Chan et al., 2009) . To this end, we substituted amino acids Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133 within the cysteine-rich domain of the SARS-CoV 3a protein with serine to generate a lentivirus expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutant, 3a-CS (Chan et al., 2009; Figure 2A) . To test whether the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is required to stimulate secretion of IL-1β, we transduced LPSprimed BMMs with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, V25F, 3a, 3a-CS, or M proteins. Consistent with a previous report (Nieto -Torres et al., 2015) , we found that the V25F mutant lentivirus failed to stimulate IL-1β release from BMMs ( Figure 2B) . Notably, the 3a-CS mutant completely abrogated IL-1β secretion (Figure 2B) , suggesting that the ion channel activity of the 3a protein is required for SARS-CoV 3a-induced IL-1β secretion.
FIGURE 4 | NLRP3 inflammasome activation by SARS-CoV 3a. HeLa cells were transfected with the expression plasmid encoding NLRP3 and that encoding HA-tagged SARS-CoV 3a, 3a-CS, E, or V25F, and by with a confocal microscope. Scale bars, 10 µm. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Next, we determined the subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV 3a protein using confocal microscopy. When the SARS-CoV Cell-free supernatants were collected at 24 h (lentiviruses) or 6 h (ATP) post-infection or stimulation, and analyzed for IL-1β by ELISA. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments, and indicate the mean ± SD; * * P < 0.01 and * * * P < 0.001.
3a protein was expressed in HeLa cells, we observed two main distribution patterns. Consistent with previous reports (Yu et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2005) , the 3a protein localized to the Golgi apparatus ( Figure 3A ). In addition, the 3a proteins concentrated in spot structures, which mainly localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (Figure 3B ). By contrast, the 3a-CS mutant was concentrated in the Golgi apparatus rather than in the ER and did not form spot structures (Figures 3A,B) . We next examined the intracellular localization of NLRP3. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome led to a redistribution from the cytosol to the perinuclear space, a process considered as a hallmark of NLRP3 activation (Zhou et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2013; Moriyama et al., 2016) . Although cells expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutants 3a-CS or V25F uniformly expressed NLRP3 throughout the cytoplasm, it was redistributed to the perinuclear region in SARS-CoV 3a-or E-expressing cells (Figure 4) . Together, these data provide evidence that the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for triggering the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Both K + Efflux and ROS Production Are Involved in the IL-1β Release Induced by the SARS-CoV 3a Protein
Finally, we investigated the mechanism by which SARS-CoV 3a triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A previous study showed that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) . In addition, K + efflux is a well-known activator of the NLRP3 inflammasome (Mariathasan et al., 2006; Petrilli et al., 2007) . These observations prompted us to examine whether K + efflux is required for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. To this end, BMMs in K + -rich medium were infected with influenza A virus or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins. In agreement with a previous result (Ichinohe et al., 2010) , we found that IL-1β secretion caused by influenza virus was completely blocked when the extracellular K + concentration was increased to 130 mM ( Figure 5A) . The inhibitory effect of the K + -rich medium was also observed when cells were stimulated with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins ( Figure 5B ). Since mitochondrial ROS are important for NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Nakahira et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011) , we next stimulated BMMs with extracellular ATP or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins in the presence or absence of the antioxidant, Mito-TEMPO, a scavenger that is specific for mitochondrial ROS Trnka et al., 2009) . As reported previously (Nakahira et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012) , treatment of BMMs with Mito-TEMPO completely blocked IL-1β secretion in response to ATP ( Figure 6A) . Similarly, IL-1β release induced by the SARS-CoV E and 3a proteins was significantly inhibited by Mito-TEMPO ( Figure 6B) . These observations indicate that the SARS-CoV 3a protein disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations and causes mitochondrial damages, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
In summary, we found that the ion channel activity of SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In addition, both K + efflux and mitochondrial ROS production are required for SARS-CoV 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion.
Thus far, several models have been proposed to explain NLRP3 inflammasome activation by RNA viruses. First, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Second, viroporins encoded by RNA viruses activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In the case of influenza virus, the proton-selective M2 ion channel in the acidic trans-Golgi network activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010) . Interestingly, an M2 mutant in which histidine was substituted with glycine at position 37 (H37G), causing loss of proton selectivity, enables transport of other cations (i.e., Na + and K + ), thereby leading to enhanced secretion of IL-1β from LPS-primed BMMs and dendritic cells when compared with the wild-type M2 protein.
In addition, the 2B proteins of EMCV, poliovirus, enterovirus 71 (EV71), and human rhinovirus (a member of the Picornaviridae family) triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inducing Ca 2+ flux from the ER and Golgi compartments (Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013) . Furthermore, hepatitis C virus stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β production though its p7 viroporin (Negash et al., 2013; Farag et al., 2017) . Third, a recent study has demonstrated that the 3D protein of EV71 directly interacts with NLRP3 to facilitate the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasome complex (Wang et al., 2017) .
In the case of SARS-CoV, the viroporin E forms forms Ca 2+permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In addition, another viroporin 3a was found to induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Yue et al., 2018) . Although alanine substitution at Cys-133, which is required for dimer or tetramer formation (Lu et al., 2006) , still allows activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by interacting with caspase-1 (Yue et al., 2018) , the ion channel activity-loss mutant 3a-CS (Cys-to-Ser substitution at positions Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133) (Chan et al., 2009 ) completely abrogated IL-1β secretion from LPS-primed BMMs, suggesting that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV has the ability to induce the NLRP3 inflammasome activation by multiple mechanisms. Previous studies show that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV is localized to the plasma membrane (Minakshi and Padhan, 2014) and acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) , thereby (presumably) stimulating the K + efflux at the plasma membrane. Indeed, we found that IL-1β secretion caused by the 3a protein was significantly inhibited when the extracellular K + concentration increased to 130 mM. Although it remains unclear whether another viroporin 8a of SARS-CoV (Castano-Rodriguez et al., 2018) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, these data highlights the importance of viroporins in SARS-CoV-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A better understanding of the mechanism that governs the NLRP3 inflammasome will facilitate the development of more effective interventions for the treatment of infectious diseases and increase our understanding of viral pathogenesis. | What ion channel is essential for 3a-mediated IL-1Beta secretion? | {
"answer_start": [
1006
],
"text": [
"ion channel activity of the 3a protein"
]
} | false |
282 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viroporin 3a Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361828/
SHA: f02d0c1e8b0109648e578662dc250abe349a033c
Authors: Chen, I-Yin; Moriyama, Miyu; Chang, Ming-Fu; Ichinohe, Takeshi
Date: 2019-01-29
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00050
License: cc-by
Abstract: Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-18. We previously showed that influenza virus M2 or encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 2B proteins stimulate IL-1β secretion following activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, the mechanism by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we provide direct evidence that SARS-CoV 3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages. SARS-CoV 3a was sufficient to cause the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The ion channel activity of the 3a protein was essential for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. While cells uninfected or infected with a lentivirus expressing a 3a protein defective in ion channel activity expressed NLRP3 uniformly throughout the cytoplasm, NLRP3 was redistributed to the perinuclear space in cells infected with a lentivirus expressing the 3a protein. K(+) efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species were important for SARS-CoV 3a-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These results highlight the importance of viroporins, transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins, in virus-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation.
Text: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a member of the genus Betacoronavirus within the family Coronaviridae, is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 30 kb in length. The 5 two-thirds of the genome encodes large polyprotein precursors, open reading frame (ORF) 1 and ORF1b, which are proteolytically cleaved to generate 16 non-structural proteins (Tan et al., 2005) . The 3 one-third of the genome encodes four structural proteins, spike (S), envelope (E), matrix (M) and nucleocapsid (N), and non-structural proteins, along with a set of accessory proteins (3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, and 9b) (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005; Tan et al., 2005) . SARS-CoV is the etiological agent of SARS (Drosten et al., 2003; Fouchier et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003; Kuiken et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003) . At least 8,098 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection, with a fatality rate of 9.6%, were reported to the World Health Organization from November 2002 to July 2003. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, were detected in autopsy tissues from SARS patients (He et al., 2006) . Although dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in lung injury and the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood.
The innate immune systems utilizes pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Medzhitov, 2001; Kawai and Akira, 2010) . Recognition of virus infection plays an important role in limiting virus replication at the early stages of infection. Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) is activated by a wide variety of stimuli, including virus infection (Bauernfeind et al., 2011) . Four models describing activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome have been proposed thus far (Hornung and Latz, 2010; Schroder et al., 2010; Tschopp and Schroder, 2010) . First, the disturbances in intracellular ionic concentrations, including K + efflux and Ca 2+ influx, play an important role (Fernandes-Alnemri et al., 2007; Petrilli et al., 2007; Arlehamn et al., 2010; Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Murakami et al., 2012; Munoz-Planillo et al., 2013) . Second, cathepsin B and L, which are specific lysosomal cysteine proteases, are though to play a role after phagocytosis of cholesterol crystals (Duewell et al., 2010) , fibrillar peptide amyloid-beta , silica crystals, and aluminum salts . Third is the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or mitochondrial DNA from damaged mitochondria (Zhou et al., , 2011 Nakahira et al., 2011; Shimada et al., 2012) . Finally, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Upon activation, the NLRP3 is recruited to the mitochondria via association with mitochondrial antiviral signaling (MAVS) or mitofusin 2 expressed on the outer mitochondrial membrane Subramanian et al., 2013) ; these molecules then recruit the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC) and pro-caspase-1 to form the NLRP3 inflammasome. This event activates the downstream molecule, caspase-1, which catalyzes the proteolytic processing of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms and stimulates their secretion (Kayagaki et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015) .
It is increasingly evident that NLRP3 detects RNA viruses by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) , transmembrane pore-forming proteins, encoded by certain RNA viruses; these proteins alter membrane permeability to ions by forming membrane channels (Tan et al., 2005; Chen and Ichinohe, 2015) . A recent study shows that the SARS-CoV E protein, which comprise only 76 amino acids, forms Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . Although the E and 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, which comprise 274 amino acids and contain three transmembrane domains (Zeng et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006) , are thought to act as Na + /K + and K + channels, respectively (Wilson et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2007; Parthasarathy et al., 2008; Pervushin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011) , the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we examined the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Six-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Committees of the Institute of Medical Science (The University of Tokyo).
Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) were prepared as described previously (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . In brief, bone marrow was obtained from the tibia and femur by flushing with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Nacalai Tesque). Bone marrow cells were cultured for 5 days in DMEM supplemented with 30% L929 cell supernatant containing macrophage colony-stimulating factor, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and L-glutamine (2 mM) at 37 • C/5% CO 2 . HEK293FT cells (a human embryonic kidney cell line) and HeLa cells (a human epithelial carcinoma cell line) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque). MDCK cells (Madin-Darby canine kidney cells) and HT-1080 cells (a human fibrosarcoma cell line) were grown in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM; Nacalai Tesque) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque).
Influenza A virus strain A/PR8 (H1N1) was grown at 35 • C for 2 days in the allantoic cavities of 10-day-old fertile chicken eggs (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . The viral titer was quantified in a standard plaque assay using MDCK cells (Pang et al., 2013) .
Plasmids cDNAs encoding the E and M proteins of SARS-CoV Frankfurt 1 strain (Matsuyama et al., 2005) were obtained by reverse transcription and PCR of total RNA extracted from SARS-CoVinfected Vero cells, followed by PCR amplification using specific primers. pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His was provided by Ming-Fu Chang (National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan). To generate the plasmids pLenti6-E-V5His, pLenti6-3a-V5His, and pLenti-M-V5His, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets and then ligated into pLenti6-TOPO vectors (Invitrogen). To generate plasmids pCA7-flag-E, pCA7-flag-3a, and pCA7flag-M, pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-3a, and pCA7-HA-M, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets, digested with EcoR I and Not I, and subcloned into the EcoR I-Not I sites of the pCA7-flag-ASC plasmid or pCA7-HA-M2 plasmid, respectively (Ito et al., 2012) . To construct plasmids expressing the E mutant V25F, the mutated E fragments were amplified by inverse PCR with wildtype E-containing plasmids and specific primer sets. The PCR products were cleaved by Dpn I, ligated in a ligase-and T4 kinase-containing reaction and then transformed into DH5α competent cells (TOYOBO). To construct plasmids expressing the 3a mutant 3a-CS, fragments were amplified from wildtype 3a-containing plasmids using 3a-specific primer sets and transformed as described above.
HEK293FT cells were seeded in 24-well cluster plates and transfected with 1 µg pLenti6-E/3a/M-V5His, pLenti-GFP (green fluorescent protein), or pLenti-M2 using polyethylenimine (PEI) Max. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were lysed with RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 1% NP-40, 0.05% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM EDTA). And the lysates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) followed by electroblotting onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. The membranes were incubated over night with mouse anti-V5-tag (R960-25, Invitrogen), mouse anti-influenza A virus M2 (14C2, Abcam), mouse anti-GFP (GF200, Nacalai Tesque), or rabbit antitubulin (DM1A, Santa Cruz) antibodies, followed by horseradish peroxide-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Immuno Research Laboratories) or anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen). After washing 3 times with washing buffer (0.05% Tween-20/PBS), the membranes were exposed using Chemi-Lumi One Super (Nacalai Tesque), and the chemiluminescent signals were captured by an ImageQuant LAS-4000 mini apparatus (GE Healthcare).
To generate lentiviruses expressing V5-tagged SARS-CoV E, 3a, and M proteins, the full-length cDNA encoding each viral protein was cloned into the pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) using the following primers: SARS-CoV E forward, 5 -caccatgtactcattcgtttcgga-3 , and reverse, 5 -gaccagaagatcaggaactc-3 ; SARS-CoV 3a forward, 5caccatggatttgtttatgagatt-3 , and reverse, 5 -caaaggcacgctagtagtcg-3 ; SARS-CoV M forward, 5 -caccatggcagacaacggtactat-3 , and reverse, 5 -ctgtactagcaaagcaatat-3 . Sub-confluent monolayers of HEK293FT cells seeded in a collagen-coated dish (10 cm in diameter) were transfected with 3 µg of pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector expressing each viral protein or EGFP together with ViraPower Packaging Mix (Invitrogen) using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The supernatants containing lentiviruses were harvested and filtered through a 0.45 µm filter (Millipore) at 72-96 h post-transfection (Ito et al., 2012) . The lentiviral titer was then quantified using HT-1080 cells as described previously .
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were plated at a density of 8 × 10 5 in 24-well plate and infected with A/PR8 influenza virus or lentivirus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 or 0.2 for 1 h, respectively. Then, BMMs were stimulated with 1 µg/ml of LPS and cultured for additional 23 h in complete media. Supernatants were collected at 24 h post-infection and centrifuged to remove cell debris. The amount of IL-1β in the supernatants was measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using paired antibodies (eBioscience) (Ichinohe et al., 2010 .
To clarify the cellular localization of the wild-type and mutant 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-flag-3a or pCD7-flag-3a-CS together with 0.5 µg of ER-mCherry or DsRed-Golgi (Ito et al., 2012) . At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing with PBS and blocking with 4% BSA/PBS, the cells were incubated with a mouse anti-flag antibody (M2, Sigma) followed by incubation with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies).
To observe the cellular distribution of NLRP3 in the E-or 3a-expressing cells, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-EV25F, pCA7-HA-3a, pCA7-HA-3a-CS, or pCA7 control vector together with 0.5 µg of pCA7-NLRP3. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed and permeabilized with 4% paraformaldehyde and 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing and blocking, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti-HA (561, MBL) and mouse anti-NLRP3 (Cryo-2; AdipoGen) antibodies, followed by Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) and Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies). Fluorescent signals were observed by confocal microscopy (A1R + , Nikon).
Statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed Student's t-test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
We previously demonstrated that the influenza virus M2 protein (a proton-selective ion channel), its H37G mutant (which has lost its proton selectivity and enables the transport of other cations such as Na + and K + ), and the EMCV 2B protein (a Ca 2+ channel) stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV E protein acts as a Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels that activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto- Torres et al., 2015) . The fact that 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as viroporin prompted us to examine whether it also triggers inflammasome activation. Thus, we first generated lentivirus plasmids expressing V5-tagged proteins and confirmed their expression in HEK293FT cells by immunoblot analysis (Figures 1A-C) . We next transduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed BMMs with the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, 3a, M, influenza virus M2, or EMCV 2B proteins. Consistent with previous reports (Ichinohe et al., Figure 1D) . Similarly, the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins stimulated IL-1β release from LPS-primed BMMs ( Figure 1D) . Furthermore, IL-1β secretion from LPSprimed BMMs co-infected with E-and 3a-expressing lentiviruses was significantly higher than that from SARS-CoV E-expressing lentivirus-infected cells ( Figure 1E) . These data indicated that the expression of SARS-CoV viroporin 3a is sufficient to stimulate IL-1β secretion by LPS-primed BMMs.
Previous studies demonstrated that the N-terminal 40 amino acids of the SARS-CoV E protein are important for ion channel formation, and that mutations N15A and V25F [located in the transmembrane domain (from amino acid residues 7-38)] prevent ion conductivity (Wilson et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2007; Verdia-Baguena et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV 3a protein contains a cysteine-rich domain (amino acid residues 127-133) that is involved in the formation of a homodimer to generate the ion channel (Lu et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009) . Thus, mutation of the cysteine-rich domain blocks the ion conductivity by the 3a protein (Chan et al., 2009) . To this end, we substituted amino acids Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133 within the cysteine-rich domain of the SARS-CoV 3a protein with serine to generate a lentivirus expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutant, 3a-CS (Chan et al., 2009; Figure 2A) . To test whether the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is required to stimulate secretion of IL-1β, we transduced LPSprimed BMMs with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, V25F, 3a, 3a-CS, or M proteins. Consistent with a previous report (Nieto -Torres et al., 2015) , we found that the V25F mutant lentivirus failed to stimulate IL-1β release from BMMs ( Figure 2B) . Notably, the 3a-CS mutant completely abrogated IL-1β secretion (Figure 2B) , suggesting that the ion channel activity of the 3a protein is required for SARS-CoV 3a-induced IL-1β secretion.
FIGURE 4 | NLRP3 inflammasome activation by SARS-CoV 3a. HeLa cells were transfected with the expression plasmid encoding NLRP3 and that encoding HA-tagged SARS-CoV 3a, 3a-CS, E, or V25F, and by with a confocal microscope. Scale bars, 10 µm. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Next, we determined the subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV 3a protein using confocal microscopy. When the SARS-CoV Cell-free supernatants were collected at 24 h (lentiviruses) or 6 h (ATP) post-infection or stimulation, and analyzed for IL-1β by ELISA. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments, and indicate the mean ± SD; * * P < 0.01 and * * * P < 0.001.
3a protein was expressed in HeLa cells, we observed two main distribution patterns. Consistent with previous reports (Yu et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2005) , the 3a protein localized to the Golgi apparatus ( Figure 3A ). In addition, the 3a proteins concentrated in spot structures, which mainly localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (Figure 3B ). By contrast, the 3a-CS mutant was concentrated in the Golgi apparatus rather than in the ER and did not form spot structures (Figures 3A,B) . We next examined the intracellular localization of NLRP3. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome led to a redistribution from the cytosol to the perinuclear space, a process considered as a hallmark of NLRP3 activation (Zhou et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2013; Moriyama et al., 2016) . Although cells expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutants 3a-CS or V25F uniformly expressed NLRP3 throughout the cytoplasm, it was redistributed to the perinuclear region in SARS-CoV 3a-or E-expressing cells (Figure 4) . Together, these data provide evidence that the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for triggering the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Both K + Efflux and ROS Production Are Involved in the IL-1β Release Induced by the SARS-CoV 3a Protein
Finally, we investigated the mechanism by which SARS-CoV 3a triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A previous study showed that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) . In addition, K + efflux is a well-known activator of the NLRP3 inflammasome (Mariathasan et al., 2006; Petrilli et al., 2007) . These observations prompted us to examine whether K + efflux is required for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. To this end, BMMs in K + -rich medium were infected with influenza A virus or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins. In agreement with a previous result (Ichinohe et al., 2010) , we found that IL-1β secretion caused by influenza virus was completely blocked when the extracellular K + concentration was increased to 130 mM ( Figure 5A) . The inhibitory effect of the K + -rich medium was also observed when cells were stimulated with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins ( Figure 5B ). Since mitochondrial ROS are important for NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Nakahira et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011) , we next stimulated BMMs with extracellular ATP or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins in the presence or absence of the antioxidant, Mito-TEMPO, a scavenger that is specific for mitochondrial ROS Trnka et al., 2009) . As reported previously (Nakahira et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012) , treatment of BMMs with Mito-TEMPO completely blocked IL-1β secretion in response to ATP ( Figure 6A) . Similarly, IL-1β release induced by the SARS-CoV E and 3a proteins was significantly inhibited by Mito-TEMPO ( Figure 6B) . These observations indicate that the SARS-CoV 3a protein disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations and causes mitochondrial damages, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
In summary, we found that the ion channel activity of SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In addition, both K + efflux and mitochondrial ROS production are required for SARS-CoV 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion.
Thus far, several models have been proposed to explain NLRP3 inflammasome activation by RNA viruses. First, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Second, viroporins encoded by RNA viruses activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In the case of influenza virus, the proton-selective M2 ion channel in the acidic trans-Golgi network activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010) . Interestingly, an M2 mutant in which histidine was substituted with glycine at position 37 (H37G), causing loss of proton selectivity, enables transport of other cations (i.e., Na + and K + ), thereby leading to enhanced secretion of IL-1β from LPS-primed BMMs and dendritic cells when compared with the wild-type M2 protein.
In addition, the 2B proteins of EMCV, poliovirus, enterovirus 71 (EV71), and human rhinovirus (a member of the Picornaviridae family) triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inducing Ca 2+ flux from the ER and Golgi compartments (Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013) . Furthermore, hepatitis C virus stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β production though its p7 viroporin (Negash et al., 2013; Farag et al., 2017) . Third, a recent study has demonstrated that the 3D protein of EV71 directly interacts with NLRP3 to facilitate the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasome complex (Wang et al., 2017) .
In the case of SARS-CoV, the viroporin E forms forms Ca 2+permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In addition, another viroporin 3a was found to induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Yue et al., 2018) . Although alanine substitution at Cys-133, which is required for dimer or tetramer formation (Lu et al., 2006) , still allows activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by interacting with caspase-1 (Yue et al., 2018) , the ion channel activity-loss mutant 3a-CS (Cys-to-Ser substitution at positions Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133) (Chan et al., 2009 ) completely abrogated IL-1β secretion from LPS-primed BMMs, suggesting that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV has the ability to induce the NLRP3 inflammasome activation by multiple mechanisms. Previous studies show that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV is localized to the plasma membrane (Minakshi and Padhan, 2014) and acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) , thereby (presumably) stimulating the K + efflux at the plasma membrane. Indeed, we found that IL-1β secretion caused by the 3a protein was significantly inhibited when the extracellular K + concentration increased to 130 mM. Although it remains unclear whether another viroporin 8a of SARS-CoV (Castano-Rodriguez et al., 2018) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, these data highlights the importance of viroporins in SARS-CoV-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A better understanding of the mechanism that governs the NLRP3 inflammasome will facilitate the development of more effective interventions for the treatment of infectious diseases and increase our understanding of viral pathogenesis. | What are viroporins? | {
"answer_start": [
1545
],
"text": [
"transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins"
]
} | false |
283 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viroporin 3a Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361828/
SHA: f02d0c1e8b0109648e578662dc250abe349a033c
Authors: Chen, I-Yin; Moriyama, Miyu; Chang, Ming-Fu; Ichinohe, Takeshi
Date: 2019-01-29
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00050
License: cc-by
Abstract: Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-18. We previously showed that influenza virus M2 or encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 2B proteins stimulate IL-1β secretion following activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, the mechanism by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we provide direct evidence that SARS-CoV 3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages. SARS-CoV 3a was sufficient to cause the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The ion channel activity of the 3a protein was essential for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. While cells uninfected or infected with a lentivirus expressing a 3a protein defective in ion channel activity expressed NLRP3 uniformly throughout the cytoplasm, NLRP3 was redistributed to the perinuclear space in cells infected with a lentivirus expressing the 3a protein. K(+) efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species were important for SARS-CoV 3a-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These results highlight the importance of viroporins, transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins, in virus-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation.
Text: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a member of the genus Betacoronavirus within the family Coronaviridae, is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 30 kb in length. The 5 two-thirds of the genome encodes large polyprotein precursors, open reading frame (ORF) 1 and ORF1b, which are proteolytically cleaved to generate 16 non-structural proteins (Tan et al., 2005) . The 3 one-third of the genome encodes four structural proteins, spike (S), envelope (E), matrix (M) and nucleocapsid (N), and non-structural proteins, along with a set of accessory proteins (3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, and 9b) (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005; Tan et al., 2005) . SARS-CoV is the etiological agent of SARS (Drosten et al., 2003; Fouchier et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003; Kuiken et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003) . At least 8,098 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection, with a fatality rate of 9.6%, were reported to the World Health Organization from November 2002 to July 2003. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, were detected in autopsy tissues from SARS patients (He et al., 2006) . Although dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in lung injury and the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood.
The innate immune systems utilizes pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Medzhitov, 2001; Kawai and Akira, 2010) . Recognition of virus infection plays an important role in limiting virus replication at the early stages of infection. Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) is activated by a wide variety of stimuli, including virus infection (Bauernfeind et al., 2011) . Four models describing activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome have been proposed thus far (Hornung and Latz, 2010; Schroder et al., 2010; Tschopp and Schroder, 2010) . First, the disturbances in intracellular ionic concentrations, including K + efflux and Ca 2+ influx, play an important role (Fernandes-Alnemri et al., 2007; Petrilli et al., 2007; Arlehamn et al., 2010; Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Murakami et al., 2012; Munoz-Planillo et al., 2013) . Second, cathepsin B and L, which are specific lysosomal cysteine proteases, are though to play a role after phagocytosis of cholesterol crystals (Duewell et al., 2010) , fibrillar peptide amyloid-beta , silica crystals, and aluminum salts . Third is the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or mitochondrial DNA from damaged mitochondria (Zhou et al., , 2011 Nakahira et al., 2011; Shimada et al., 2012) . Finally, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Upon activation, the NLRP3 is recruited to the mitochondria via association with mitochondrial antiviral signaling (MAVS) or mitofusin 2 expressed on the outer mitochondrial membrane Subramanian et al., 2013) ; these molecules then recruit the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC) and pro-caspase-1 to form the NLRP3 inflammasome. This event activates the downstream molecule, caspase-1, which catalyzes the proteolytic processing of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms and stimulates their secretion (Kayagaki et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015) .
It is increasingly evident that NLRP3 detects RNA viruses by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) , transmembrane pore-forming proteins, encoded by certain RNA viruses; these proteins alter membrane permeability to ions by forming membrane channels (Tan et al., 2005; Chen and Ichinohe, 2015) . A recent study shows that the SARS-CoV E protein, which comprise only 76 amino acids, forms Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . Although the E and 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, which comprise 274 amino acids and contain three transmembrane domains (Zeng et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006) , are thought to act as Na + /K + and K + channels, respectively (Wilson et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2007; Parthasarathy et al., 2008; Pervushin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011) , the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we examined the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Six-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Committees of the Institute of Medical Science (The University of Tokyo).
Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) were prepared as described previously (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . In brief, bone marrow was obtained from the tibia and femur by flushing with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Nacalai Tesque). Bone marrow cells were cultured for 5 days in DMEM supplemented with 30% L929 cell supernatant containing macrophage colony-stimulating factor, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and L-glutamine (2 mM) at 37 • C/5% CO 2 . HEK293FT cells (a human embryonic kidney cell line) and HeLa cells (a human epithelial carcinoma cell line) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque). MDCK cells (Madin-Darby canine kidney cells) and HT-1080 cells (a human fibrosarcoma cell line) were grown in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM; Nacalai Tesque) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque).
Influenza A virus strain A/PR8 (H1N1) was grown at 35 • C for 2 days in the allantoic cavities of 10-day-old fertile chicken eggs (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . The viral titer was quantified in a standard plaque assay using MDCK cells (Pang et al., 2013) .
Plasmids cDNAs encoding the E and M proteins of SARS-CoV Frankfurt 1 strain (Matsuyama et al., 2005) were obtained by reverse transcription and PCR of total RNA extracted from SARS-CoVinfected Vero cells, followed by PCR amplification using specific primers. pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His was provided by Ming-Fu Chang (National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan). To generate the plasmids pLenti6-E-V5His, pLenti6-3a-V5His, and pLenti-M-V5His, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets and then ligated into pLenti6-TOPO vectors (Invitrogen). To generate plasmids pCA7-flag-E, pCA7-flag-3a, and pCA7flag-M, pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-3a, and pCA7-HA-M, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets, digested with EcoR I and Not I, and subcloned into the EcoR I-Not I sites of the pCA7-flag-ASC plasmid or pCA7-HA-M2 plasmid, respectively (Ito et al., 2012) . To construct plasmids expressing the E mutant V25F, the mutated E fragments were amplified by inverse PCR with wildtype E-containing plasmids and specific primer sets. The PCR products were cleaved by Dpn I, ligated in a ligase-and T4 kinase-containing reaction and then transformed into DH5α competent cells (TOYOBO). To construct plasmids expressing the 3a mutant 3a-CS, fragments were amplified from wildtype 3a-containing plasmids using 3a-specific primer sets and transformed as described above.
HEK293FT cells were seeded in 24-well cluster plates and transfected with 1 µg pLenti6-E/3a/M-V5His, pLenti-GFP (green fluorescent protein), or pLenti-M2 using polyethylenimine (PEI) Max. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were lysed with RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 1% NP-40, 0.05% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM EDTA). And the lysates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) followed by electroblotting onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. The membranes were incubated over night with mouse anti-V5-tag (R960-25, Invitrogen), mouse anti-influenza A virus M2 (14C2, Abcam), mouse anti-GFP (GF200, Nacalai Tesque), or rabbit antitubulin (DM1A, Santa Cruz) antibodies, followed by horseradish peroxide-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Immuno Research Laboratories) or anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen). After washing 3 times with washing buffer (0.05% Tween-20/PBS), the membranes were exposed using Chemi-Lumi One Super (Nacalai Tesque), and the chemiluminescent signals were captured by an ImageQuant LAS-4000 mini apparatus (GE Healthcare).
To generate lentiviruses expressing V5-tagged SARS-CoV E, 3a, and M proteins, the full-length cDNA encoding each viral protein was cloned into the pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) using the following primers: SARS-CoV E forward, 5 -caccatgtactcattcgtttcgga-3 , and reverse, 5 -gaccagaagatcaggaactc-3 ; SARS-CoV 3a forward, 5caccatggatttgtttatgagatt-3 , and reverse, 5 -caaaggcacgctagtagtcg-3 ; SARS-CoV M forward, 5 -caccatggcagacaacggtactat-3 , and reverse, 5 -ctgtactagcaaagcaatat-3 . Sub-confluent monolayers of HEK293FT cells seeded in a collagen-coated dish (10 cm in diameter) were transfected with 3 µg of pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector expressing each viral protein or EGFP together with ViraPower Packaging Mix (Invitrogen) using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The supernatants containing lentiviruses were harvested and filtered through a 0.45 µm filter (Millipore) at 72-96 h post-transfection (Ito et al., 2012) . The lentiviral titer was then quantified using HT-1080 cells as described previously .
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were plated at a density of 8 × 10 5 in 24-well plate and infected with A/PR8 influenza virus or lentivirus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 or 0.2 for 1 h, respectively. Then, BMMs were stimulated with 1 µg/ml of LPS and cultured for additional 23 h in complete media. Supernatants were collected at 24 h post-infection and centrifuged to remove cell debris. The amount of IL-1β in the supernatants was measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using paired antibodies (eBioscience) (Ichinohe et al., 2010 .
To clarify the cellular localization of the wild-type and mutant 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-flag-3a or pCD7-flag-3a-CS together with 0.5 µg of ER-mCherry or DsRed-Golgi (Ito et al., 2012) . At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing with PBS and blocking with 4% BSA/PBS, the cells were incubated with a mouse anti-flag antibody (M2, Sigma) followed by incubation with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies).
To observe the cellular distribution of NLRP3 in the E-or 3a-expressing cells, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-EV25F, pCA7-HA-3a, pCA7-HA-3a-CS, or pCA7 control vector together with 0.5 µg of pCA7-NLRP3. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed and permeabilized with 4% paraformaldehyde and 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing and blocking, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti-HA (561, MBL) and mouse anti-NLRP3 (Cryo-2; AdipoGen) antibodies, followed by Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) and Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies). Fluorescent signals were observed by confocal microscopy (A1R + , Nikon).
Statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed Student's t-test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
We previously demonstrated that the influenza virus M2 protein (a proton-selective ion channel), its H37G mutant (which has lost its proton selectivity and enables the transport of other cations such as Na + and K + ), and the EMCV 2B protein (a Ca 2+ channel) stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV E protein acts as a Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels that activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto- Torres et al., 2015) . The fact that 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as viroporin prompted us to examine whether it also triggers inflammasome activation. Thus, we first generated lentivirus plasmids expressing V5-tagged proteins and confirmed their expression in HEK293FT cells by immunoblot analysis (Figures 1A-C) . We next transduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed BMMs with the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, 3a, M, influenza virus M2, or EMCV 2B proteins. Consistent with previous reports (Ichinohe et al., Figure 1D) . Similarly, the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins stimulated IL-1β release from LPS-primed BMMs ( Figure 1D) . Furthermore, IL-1β secretion from LPSprimed BMMs co-infected with E-and 3a-expressing lentiviruses was significantly higher than that from SARS-CoV E-expressing lentivirus-infected cells ( Figure 1E) . These data indicated that the expression of SARS-CoV viroporin 3a is sufficient to stimulate IL-1β secretion by LPS-primed BMMs.
Previous studies demonstrated that the N-terminal 40 amino acids of the SARS-CoV E protein are important for ion channel formation, and that mutations N15A and V25F [located in the transmembrane domain (from amino acid residues 7-38)] prevent ion conductivity (Wilson et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2007; Verdia-Baguena et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV 3a protein contains a cysteine-rich domain (amino acid residues 127-133) that is involved in the formation of a homodimer to generate the ion channel (Lu et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009) . Thus, mutation of the cysteine-rich domain blocks the ion conductivity by the 3a protein (Chan et al., 2009) . To this end, we substituted amino acids Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133 within the cysteine-rich domain of the SARS-CoV 3a protein with serine to generate a lentivirus expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutant, 3a-CS (Chan et al., 2009; Figure 2A) . To test whether the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is required to stimulate secretion of IL-1β, we transduced LPSprimed BMMs with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, V25F, 3a, 3a-CS, or M proteins. Consistent with a previous report (Nieto -Torres et al., 2015) , we found that the V25F mutant lentivirus failed to stimulate IL-1β release from BMMs ( Figure 2B) . Notably, the 3a-CS mutant completely abrogated IL-1β secretion (Figure 2B) , suggesting that the ion channel activity of the 3a protein is required for SARS-CoV 3a-induced IL-1β secretion.
FIGURE 4 | NLRP3 inflammasome activation by SARS-CoV 3a. HeLa cells were transfected with the expression plasmid encoding NLRP3 and that encoding HA-tagged SARS-CoV 3a, 3a-CS, E, or V25F, and by with a confocal microscope. Scale bars, 10 µm. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Next, we determined the subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV 3a protein using confocal microscopy. When the SARS-CoV Cell-free supernatants were collected at 24 h (lentiviruses) or 6 h (ATP) post-infection or stimulation, and analyzed for IL-1β by ELISA. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments, and indicate the mean ± SD; * * P < 0.01 and * * * P < 0.001.
3a protein was expressed in HeLa cells, we observed two main distribution patterns. Consistent with previous reports (Yu et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2005) , the 3a protein localized to the Golgi apparatus ( Figure 3A ). In addition, the 3a proteins concentrated in spot structures, which mainly localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (Figure 3B ). By contrast, the 3a-CS mutant was concentrated in the Golgi apparatus rather than in the ER and did not form spot structures (Figures 3A,B) . We next examined the intracellular localization of NLRP3. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome led to a redistribution from the cytosol to the perinuclear space, a process considered as a hallmark of NLRP3 activation (Zhou et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2013; Moriyama et al., 2016) . Although cells expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutants 3a-CS or V25F uniformly expressed NLRP3 throughout the cytoplasm, it was redistributed to the perinuclear region in SARS-CoV 3a-or E-expressing cells (Figure 4) . Together, these data provide evidence that the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for triggering the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Both K + Efflux and ROS Production Are Involved in the IL-1β Release Induced by the SARS-CoV 3a Protein
Finally, we investigated the mechanism by which SARS-CoV 3a triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A previous study showed that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) . In addition, K + efflux is a well-known activator of the NLRP3 inflammasome (Mariathasan et al., 2006; Petrilli et al., 2007) . These observations prompted us to examine whether K + efflux is required for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. To this end, BMMs in K + -rich medium were infected with influenza A virus or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins. In agreement with a previous result (Ichinohe et al., 2010) , we found that IL-1β secretion caused by influenza virus was completely blocked when the extracellular K + concentration was increased to 130 mM ( Figure 5A) . The inhibitory effect of the K + -rich medium was also observed when cells were stimulated with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins ( Figure 5B ). Since mitochondrial ROS are important for NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Nakahira et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011) , we next stimulated BMMs with extracellular ATP or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins in the presence or absence of the antioxidant, Mito-TEMPO, a scavenger that is specific for mitochondrial ROS Trnka et al., 2009) . As reported previously (Nakahira et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012) , treatment of BMMs with Mito-TEMPO completely blocked IL-1β secretion in response to ATP ( Figure 6A) . Similarly, IL-1β release induced by the SARS-CoV E and 3a proteins was significantly inhibited by Mito-TEMPO ( Figure 6B) . These observations indicate that the SARS-CoV 3a protein disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations and causes mitochondrial damages, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
In summary, we found that the ion channel activity of SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In addition, both K + efflux and mitochondrial ROS production are required for SARS-CoV 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion.
Thus far, several models have been proposed to explain NLRP3 inflammasome activation by RNA viruses. First, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Second, viroporins encoded by RNA viruses activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In the case of influenza virus, the proton-selective M2 ion channel in the acidic trans-Golgi network activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010) . Interestingly, an M2 mutant in which histidine was substituted with glycine at position 37 (H37G), causing loss of proton selectivity, enables transport of other cations (i.e., Na + and K + ), thereby leading to enhanced secretion of IL-1β from LPS-primed BMMs and dendritic cells when compared with the wild-type M2 protein.
In addition, the 2B proteins of EMCV, poliovirus, enterovirus 71 (EV71), and human rhinovirus (a member of the Picornaviridae family) triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inducing Ca 2+ flux from the ER and Golgi compartments (Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013) . Furthermore, hepatitis C virus stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β production though its p7 viroporin (Negash et al., 2013; Farag et al., 2017) . Third, a recent study has demonstrated that the 3D protein of EV71 directly interacts with NLRP3 to facilitate the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasome complex (Wang et al., 2017) .
In the case of SARS-CoV, the viroporin E forms forms Ca 2+permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In addition, another viroporin 3a was found to induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Yue et al., 2018) . Although alanine substitution at Cys-133, which is required for dimer or tetramer formation (Lu et al., 2006) , still allows activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by interacting with caspase-1 (Yue et al., 2018) , the ion channel activity-loss mutant 3a-CS (Cys-to-Ser substitution at positions Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133) (Chan et al., 2009 ) completely abrogated IL-1β secretion from LPS-primed BMMs, suggesting that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV has the ability to induce the NLRP3 inflammasome activation by multiple mechanisms. Previous studies show that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV is localized to the plasma membrane (Minakshi and Padhan, 2014) and acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) , thereby (presumably) stimulating the K + efflux at the plasma membrane. Indeed, we found that IL-1β secretion caused by the 3a protein was significantly inhibited when the extracellular K + concentration increased to 130 mM. Although it remains unclear whether another viroporin 8a of SARS-CoV (Castano-Rodriguez et al., 2018) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, these data highlights the importance of viroporins in SARS-CoV-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A better understanding of the mechanism that governs the NLRP3 inflammasome will facilitate the development of more effective interventions for the treatment of infectious diseases and increase our understanding of viral pathogenesis. | What is the genus of the SARS coronavirus? | {
"answer_start": [
1723
],
"text": [
"Betacoronavirus"
]
} | false |
284 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viroporin 3a Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361828/
SHA: f02d0c1e8b0109648e578662dc250abe349a033c
Authors: Chen, I-Yin; Moriyama, Miyu; Chang, Ming-Fu; Ichinohe, Takeshi
Date: 2019-01-29
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00050
License: cc-by
Abstract: Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-18. We previously showed that influenza virus M2 or encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 2B proteins stimulate IL-1β secretion following activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, the mechanism by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we provide direct evidence that SARS-CoV 3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages. SARS-CoV 3a was sufficient to cause the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The ion channel activity of the 3a protein was essential for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. While cells uninfected or infected with a lentivirus expressing a 3a protein defective in ion channel activity expressed NLRP3 uniformly throughout the cytoplasm, NLRP3 was redistributed to the perinuclear space in cells infected with a lentivirus expressing the 3a protein. K(+) efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species were important for SARS-CoV 3a-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These results highlight the importance of viroporins, transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins, in virus-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation.
Text: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a member of the genus Betacoronavirus within the family Coronaviridae, is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 30 kb in length. The 5 two-thirds of the genome encodes large polyprotein precursors, open reading frame (ORF) 1 and ORF1b, which are proteolytically cleaved to generate 16 non-structural proteins (Tan et al., 2005) . The 3 one-third of the genome encodes four structural proteins, spike (S), envelope (E), matrix (M) and nucleocapsid (N), and non-structural proteins, along with a set of accessory proteins (3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, and 9b) (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005; Tan et al., 2005) . SARS-CoV is the etiological agent of SARS (Drosten et al., 2003; Fouchier et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003; Kuiken et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003) . At least 8,098 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection, with a fatality rate of 9.6%, were reported to the World Health Organization from November 2002 to July 2003. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, were detected in autopsy tissues from SARS patients (He et al., 2006) . Although dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in lung injury and the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood.
The innate immune systems utilizes pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Medzhitov, 2001; Kawai and Akira, 2010) . Recognition of virus infection plays an important role in limiting virus replication at the early stages of infection. Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) is activated by a wide variety of stimuli, including virus infection (Bauernfeind et al., 2011) . Four models describing activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome have been proposed thus far (Hornung and Latz, 2010; Schroder et al., 2010; Tschopp and Schroder, 2010) . First, the disturbances in intracellular ionic concentrations, including K + efflux and Ca 2+ influx, play an important role (Fernandes-Alnemri et al., 2007; Petrilli et al., 2007; Arlehamn et al., 2010; Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Murakami et al., 2012; Munoz-Planillo et al., 2013) . Second, cathepsin B and L, which are specific lysosomal cysteine proteases, are though to play a role after phagocytosis of cholesterol crystals (Duewell et al., 2010) , fibrillar peptide amyloid-beta , silica crystals, and aluminum salts . Third is the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or mitochondrial DNA from damaged mitochondria (Zhou et al., , 2011 Nakahira et al., 2011; Shimada et al., 2012) . Finally, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Upon activation, the NLRP3 is recruited to the mitochondria via association with mitochondrial antiviral signaling (MAVS) or mitofusin 2 expressed on the outer mitochondrial membrane Subramanian et al., 2013) ; these molecules then recruit the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC) and pro-caspase-1 to form the NLRP3 inflammasome. This event activates the downstream molecule, caspase-1, which catalyzes the proteolytic processing of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms and stimulates their secretion (Kayagaki et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015) .
It is increasingly evident that NLRP3 detects RNA viruses by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) , transmembrane pore-forming proteins, encoded by certain RNA viruses; these proteins alter membrane permeability to ions by forming membrane channels (Tan et al., 2005; Chen and Ichinohe, 2015) . A recent study shows that the SARS-CoV E protein, which comprise only 76 amino acids, forms Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . Although the E and 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, which comprise 274 amino acids and contain three transmembrane domains (Zeng et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006) , are thought to act as Na + /K + and K + channels, respectively (Wilson et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2007; Parthasarathy et al., 2008; Pervushin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011) , the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we examined the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Six-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Committees of the Institute of Medical Science (The University of Tokyo).
Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) were prepared as described previously (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . In brief, bone marrow was obtained from the tibia and femur by flushing with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Nacalai Tesque). Bone marrow cells were cultured for 5 days in DMEM supplemented with 30% L929 cell supernatant containing macrophage colony-stimulating factor, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and L-glutamine (2 mM) at 37 • C/5% CO 2 . HEK293FT cells (a human embryonic kidney cell line) and HeLa cells (a human epithelial carcinoma cell line) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque). MDCK cells (Madin-Darby canine kidney cells) and HT-1080 cells (a human fibrosarcoma cell line) were grown in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM; Nacalai Tesque) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque).
Influenza A virus strain A/PR8 (H1N1) was grown at 35 • C for 2 days in the allantoic cavities of 10-day-old fertile chicken eggs (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . The viral titer was quantified in a standard plaque assay using MDCK cells (Pang et al., 2013) .
Plasmids cDNAs encoding the E and M proteins of SARS-CoV Frankfurt 1 strain (Matsuyama et al., 2005) were obtained by reverse transcription and PCR of total RNA extracted from SARS-CoVinfected Vero cells, followed by PCR amplification using specific primers. pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His was provided by Ming-Fu Chang (National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan). To generate the plasmids pLenti6-E-V5His, pLenti6-3a-V5His, and pLenti-M-V5His, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets and then ligated into pLenti6-TOPO vectors (Invitrogen). To generate plasmids pCA7-flag-E, pCA7-flag-3a, and pCA7flag-M, pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-3a, and pCA7-HA-M, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets, digested with EcoR I and Not I, and subcloned into the EcoR I-Not I sites of the pCA7-flag-ASC plasmid or pCA7-HA-M2 plasmid, respectively (Ito et al., 2012) . To construct plasmids expressing the E mutant V25F, the mutated E fragments were amplified by inverse PCR with wildtype E-containing plasmids and specific primer sets. The PCR products were cleaved by Dpn I, ligated in a ligase-and T4 kinase-containing reaction and then transformed into DH5α competent cells (TOYOBO). To construct plasmids expressing the 3a mutant 3a-CS, fragments were amplified from wildtype 3a-containing plasmids using 3a-specific primer sets and transformed as described above.
HEK293FT cells were seeded in 24-well cluster plates and transfected with 1 µg pLenti6-E/3a/M-V5His, pLenti-GFP (green fluorescent protein), or pLenti-M2 using polyethylenimine (PEI) Max. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were lysed with RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 1% NP-40, 0.05% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM EDTA). And the lysates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) followed by electroblotting onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. The membranes were incubated over night with mouse anti-V5-tag (R960-25, Invitrogen), mouse anti-influenza A virus M2 (14C2, Abcam), mouse anti-GFP (GF200, Nacalai Tesque), or rabbit antitubulin (DM1A, Santa Cruz) antibodies, followed by horseradish peroxide-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Immuno Research Laboratories) or anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen). After washing 3 times with washing buffer (0.05% Tween-20/PBS), the membranes were exposed using Chemi-Lumi One Super (Nacalai Tesque), and the chemiluminescent signals were captured by an ImageQuant LAS-4000 mini apparatus (GE Healthcare).
To generate lentiviruses expressing V5-tagged SARS-CoV E, 3a, and M proteins, the full-length cDNA encoding each viral protein was cloned into the pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) using the following primers: SARS-CoV E forward, 5 -caccatgtactcattcgtttcgga-3 , and reverse, 5 -gaccagaagatcaggaactc-3 ; SARS-CoV 3a forward, 5caccatggatttgtttatgagatt-3 , and reverse, 5 -caaaggcacgctagtagtcg-3 ; SARS-CoV M forward, 5 -caccatggcagacaacggtactat-3 , and reverse, 5 -ctgtactagcaaagcaatat-3 . Sub-confluent monolayers of HEK293FT cells seeded in a collagen-coated dish (10 cm in diameter) were transfected with 3 µg of pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector expressing each viral protein or EGFP together with ViraPower Packaging Mix (Invitrogen) using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The supernatants containing lentiviruses were harvested and filtered through a 0.45 µm filter (Millipore) at 72-96 h post-transfection (Ito et al., 2012) . The lentiviral titer was then quantified using HT-1080 cells as described previously .
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were plated at a density of 8 × 10 5 in 24-well plate and infected with A/PR8 influenza virus or lentivirus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 or 0.2 for 1 h, respectively. Then, BMMs were stimulated with 1 µg/ml of LPS and cultured for additional 23 h in complete media. Supernatants were collected at 24 h post-infection and centrifuged to remove cell debris. The amount of IL-1β in the supernatants was measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using paired antibodies (eBioscience) (Ichinohe et al., 2010 .
To clarify the cellular localization of the wild-type and mutant 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-flag-3a or pCD7-flag-3a-CS together with 0.5 µg of ER-mCherry or DsRed-Golgi (Ito et al., 2012) . At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing with PBS and blocking with 4% BSA/PBS, the cells were incubated with a mouse anti-flag antibody (M2, Sigma) followed by incubation with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies).
To observe the cellular distribution of NLRP3 in the E-or 3a-expressing cells, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-EV25F, pCA7-HA-3a, pCA7-HA-3a-CS, or pCA7 control vector together with 0.5 µg of pCA7-NLRP3. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed and permeabilized with 4% paraformaldehyde and 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing and blocking, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti-HA (561, MBL) and mouse anti-NLRP3 (Cryo-2; AdipoGen) antibodies, followed by Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) and Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies). Fluorescent signals were observed by confocal microscopy (A1R + , Nikon).
Statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed Student's t-test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
We previously demonstrated that the influenza virus M2 protein (a proton-selective ion channel), its H37G mutant (which has lost its proton selectivity and enables the transport of other cations such as Na + and K + ), and the EMCV 2B protein (a Ca 2+ channel) stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV E protein acts as a Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels that activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto- Torres et al., 2015) . The fact that 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as viroporin prompted us to examine whether it also triggers inflammasome activation. Thus, we first generated lentivirus plasmids expressing V5-tagged proteins and confirmed their expression in HEK293FT cells by immunoblot analysis (Figures 1A-C) . We next transduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed BMMs with the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, 3a, M, influenza virus M2, or EMCV 2B proteins. Consistent with previous reports (Ichinohe et al., Figure 1D) . Similarly, the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins stimulated IL-1β release from LPS-primed BMMs ( Figure 1D) . Furthermore, IL-1β secretion from LPSprimed BMMs co-infected with E-and 3a-expressing lentiviruses was significantly higher than that from SARS-CoV E-expressing lentivirus-infected cells ( Figure 1E) . These data indicated that the expression of SARS-CoV viroporin 3a is sufficient to stimulate IL-1β secretion by LPS-primed BMMs.
Previous studies demonstrated that the N-terminal 40 amino acids of the SARS-CoV E protein are important for ion channel formation, and that mutations N15A and V25F [located in the transmembrane domain (from amino acid residues 7-38)] prevent ion conductivity (Wilson et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2007; Verdia-Baguena et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV 3a protein contains a cysteine-rich domain (amino acid residues 127-133) that is involved in the formation of a homodimer to generate the ion channel (Lu et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009) . Thus, mutation of the cysteine-rich domain blocks the ion conductivity by the 3a protein (Chan et al., 2009) . To this end, we substituted amino acids Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133 within the cysteine-rich domain of the SARS-CoV 3a protein with serine to generate a lentivirus expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutant, 3a-CS (Chan et al., 2009; Figure 2A) . To test whether the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is required to stimulate secretion of IL-1β, we transduced LPSprimed BMMs with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, V25F, 3a, 3a-CS, or M proteins. Consistent with a previous report (Nieto -Torres et al., 2015) , we found that the V25F mutant lentivirus failed to stimulate IL-1β release from BMMs ( Figure 2B) . Notably, the 3a-CS mutant completely abrogated IL-1β secretion (Figure 2B) , suggesting that the ion channel activity of the 3a protein is required for SARS-CoV 3a-induced IL-1β secretion.
FIGURE 4 | NLRP3 inflammasome activation by SARS-CoV 3a. HeLa cells were transfected with the expression plasmid encoding NLRP3 and that encoding HA-tagged SARS-CoV 3a, 3a-CS, E, or V25F, and by with a confocal microscope. Scale bars, 10 µm. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Next, we determined the subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV 3a protein using confocal microscopy. When the SARS-CoV Cell-free supernatants were collected at 24 h (lentiviruses) or 6 h (ATP) post-infection or stimulation, and analyzed for IL-1β by ELISA. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments, and indicate the mean ± SD; * * P < 0.01 and * * * P < 0.001.
3a protein was expressed in HeLa cells, we observed two main distribution patterns. Consistent with previous reports (Yu et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2005) , the 3a protein localized to the Golgi apparatus ( Figure 3A ). In addition, the 3a proteins concentrated in spot structures, which mainly localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (Figure 3B ). By contrast, the 3a-CS mutant was concentrated in the Golgi apparatus rather than in the ER and did not form spot structures (Figures 3A,B) . We next examined the intracellular localization of NLRP3. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome led to a redistribution from the cytosol to the perinuclear space, a process considered as a hallmark of NLRP3 activation (Zhou et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2013; Moriyama et al., 2016) . Although cells expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutants 3a-CS or V25F uniformly expressed NLRP3 throughout the cytoplasm, it was redistributed to the perinuclear region in SARS-CoV 3a-or E-expressing cells (Figure 4) . Together, these data provide evidence that the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for triggering the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Both K + Efflux and ROS Production Are Involved in the IL-1β Release Induced by the SARS-CoV 3a Protein
Finally, we investigated the mechanism by which SARS-CoV 3a triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A previous study showed that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) . In addition, K + efflux is a well-known activator of the NLRP3 inflammasome (Mariathasan et al., 2006; Petrilli et al., 2007) . These observations prompted us to examine whether K + efflux is required for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. To this end, BMMs in K + -rich medium were infected with influenza A virus or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins. In agreement with a previous result (Ichinohe et al., 2010) , we found that IL-1β secretion caused by influenza virus was completely blocked when the extracellular K + concentration was increased to 130 mM ( Figure 5A) . The inhibitory effect of the K + -rich medium was also observed when cells were stimulated with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins ( Figure 5B ). Since mitochondrial ROS are important for NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Nakahira et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011) , we next stimulated BMMs with extracellular ATP or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins in the presence or absence of the antioxidant, Mito-TEMPO, a scavenger that is specific for mitochondrial ROS Trnka et al., 2009) . As reported previously (Nakahira et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012) , treatment of BMMs with Mito-TEMPO completely blocked IL-1β secretion in response to ATP ( Figure 6A) . Similarly, IL-1β release induced by the SARS-CoV E and 3a proteins was significantly inhibited by Mito-TEMPO ( Figure 6B) . These observations indicate that the SARS-CoV 3a protein disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations and causes mitochondrial damages, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
In summary, we found that the ion channel activity of SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In addition, both K + efflux and mitochondrial ROS production are required for SARS-CoV 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion.
Thus far, several models have been proposed to explain NLRP3 inflammasome activation by RNA viruses. First, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Second, viroporins encoded by RNA viruses activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In the case of influenza virus, the proton-selective M2 ion channel in the acidic trans-Golgi network activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010) . Interestingly, an M2 mutant in which histidine was substituted with glycine at position 37 (H37G), causing loss of proton selectivity, enables transport of other cations (i.e., Na + and K + ), thereby leading to enhanced secretion of IL-1β from LPS-primed BMMs and dendritic cells when compared with the wild-type M2 protein.
In addition, the 2B proteins of EMCV, poliovirus, enterovirus 71 (EV71), and human rhinovirus (a member of the Picornaviridae family) triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inducing Ca 2+ flux from the ER and Golgi compartments (Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013) . Furthermore, hepatitis C virus stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β production though its p7 viroporin (Negash et al., 2013; Farag et al., 2017) . Third, a recent study has demonstrated that the 3D protein of EV71 directly interacts with NLRP3 to facilitate the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasome complex (Wang et al., 2017) .
In the case of SARS-CoV, the viroporin E forms forms Ca 2+permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In addition, another viroporin 3a was found to induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Yue et al., 2018) . Although alanine substitution at Cys-133, which is required for dimer or tetramer formation (Lu et al., 2006) , still allows activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by interacting with caspase-1 (Yue et al., 2018) , the ion channel activity-loss mutant 3a-CS (Cys-to-Ser substitution at positions Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133) (Chan et al., 2009 ) completely abrogated IL-1β secretion from LPS-primed BMMs, suggesting that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV has the ability to induce the NLRP3 inflammasome activation by multiple mechanisms. Previous studies show that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV is localized to the plasma membrane (Minakshi and Padhan, 2014) and acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) , thereby (presumably) stimulating the K + efflux at the plasma membrane. Indeed, we found that IL-1β secretion caused by the 3a protein was significantly inhibited when the extracellular K + concentration increased to 130 mM. Although it remains unclear whether another viroporin 8a of SARS-CoV (Castano-Rodriguez et al., 2018) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, these data highlights the importance of viroporins in SARS-CoV-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A better understanding of the mechanism that governs the NLRP3 inflammasome will facilitate the development of more effective interventions for the treatment of infectious diseases and increase our understanding of viral pathogenesis. | What is the family of the SARS coronavirus? | {
"answer_start": [
1757
],
"text": [
"Coronaviridae"
]
} | false |
285 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viroporin 3a Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361828/
SHA: f02d0c1e8b0109648e578662dc250abe349a033c
Authors: Chen, I-Yin; Moriyama, Miyu; Chang, Ming-Fu; Ichinohe, Takeshi
Date: 2019-01-29
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00050
License: cc-by
Abstract: Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-18. We previously showed that influenza virus M2 or encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 2B proteins stimulate IL-1β secretion following activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, the mechanism by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we provide direct evidence that SARS-CoV 3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages. SARS-CoV 3a was sufficient to cause the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The ion channel activity of the 3a protein was essential for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. While cells uninfected or infected with a lentivirus expressing a 3a protein defective in ion channel activity expressed NLRP3 uniformly throughout the cytoplasm, NLRP3 was redistributed to the perinuclear space in cells infected with a lentivirus expressing the 3a protein. K(+) efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species were important for SARS-CoV 3a-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These results highlight the importance of viroporins, transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins, in virus-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation.
Text: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a member of the genus Betacoronavirus within the family Coronaviridae, is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 30 kb in length. The 5 two-thirds of the genome encodes large polyprotein precursors, open reading frame (ORF) 1 and ORF1b, which are proteolytically cleaved to generate 16 non-structural proteins (Tan et al., 2005) . The 3 one-third of the genome encodes four structural proteins, spike (S), envelope (E), matrix (M) and nucleocapsid (N), and non-structural proteins, along with a set of accessory proteins (3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, and 9b) (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005; Tan et al., 2005) . SARS-CoV is the etiological agent of SARS (Drosten et al., 2003; Fouchier et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003; Kuiken et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003) . At least 8,098 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection, with a fatality rate of 9.6%, were reported to the World Health Organization from November 2002 to July 2003. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, were detected in autopsy tissues from SARS patients (He et al., 2006) . Although dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in lung injury and the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood.
The innate immune systems utilizes pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Medzhitov, 2001; Kawai and Akira, 2010) . Recognition of virus infection plays an important role in limiting virus replication at the early stages of infection. Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) is activated by a wide variety of stimuli, including virus infection (Bauernfeind et al., 2011) . Four models describing activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome have been proposed thus far (Hornung and Latz, 2010; Schroder et al., 2010; Tschopp and Schroder, 2010) . First, the disturbances in intracellular ionic concentrations, including K + efflux and Ca 2+ influx, play an important role (Fernandes-Alnemri et al., 2007; Petrilli et al., 2007; Arlehamn et al., 2010; Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Murakami et al., 2012; Munoz-Planillo et al., 2013) . Second, cathepsin B and L, which are specific lysosomal cysteine proteases, are though to play a role after phagocytosis of cholesterol crystals (Duewell et al., 2010) , fibrillar peptide amyloid-beta , silica crystals, and aluminum salts . Third is the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or mitochondrial DNA from damaged mitochondria (Zhou et al., , 2011 Nakahira et al., 2011; Shimada et al., 2012) . Finally, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Upon activation, the NLRP3 is recruited to the mitochondria via association with mitochondrial antiviral signaling (MAVS) or mitofusin 2 expressed on the outer mitochondrial membrane Subramanian et al., 2013) ; these molecules then recruit the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC) and pro-caspase-1 to form the NLRP3 inflammasome. This event activates the downstream molecule, caspase-1, which catalyzes the proteolytic processing of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms and stimulates their secretion (Kayagaki et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015) .
It is increasingly evident that NLRP3 detects RNA viruses by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) , transmembrane pore-forming proteins, encoded by certain RNA viruses; these proteins alter membrane permeability to ions by forming membrane channels (Tan et al., 2005; Chen and Ichinohe, 2015) . A recent study shows that the SARS-CoV E protein, which comprise only 76 amino acids, forms Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . Although the E and 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, which comprise 274 amino acids and contain three transmembrane domains (Zeng et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006) , are thought to act as Na + /K + and K + channels, respectively (Wilson et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2007; Parthasarathy et al., 2008; Pervushin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011) , the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we examined the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Six-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Committees of the Institute of Medical Science (The University of Tokyo).
Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) were prepared as described previously (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . In brief, bone marrow was obtained from the tibia and femur by flushing with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Nacalai Tesque). Bone marrow cells were cultured for 5 days in DMEM supplemented with 30% L929 cell supernatant containing macrophage colony-stimulating factor, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and L-glutamine (2 mM) at 37 • C/5% CO 2 . HEK293FT cells (a human embryonic kidney cell line) and HeLa cells (a human epithelial carcinoma cell line) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque). MDCK cells (Madin-Darby canine kidney cells) and HT-1080 cells (a human fibrosarcoma cell line) were grown in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM; Nacalai Tesque) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque).
Influenza A virus strain A/PR8 (H1N1) was grown at 35 • C for 2 days in the allantoic cavities of 10-day-old fertile chicken eggs (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . The viral titer was quantified in a standard plaque assay using MDCK cells (Pang et al., 2013) .
Plasmids cDNAs encoding the E and M proteins of SARS-CoV Frankfurt 1 strain (Matsuyama et al., 2005) were obtained by reverse transcription and PCR of total RNA extracted from SARS-CoVinfected Vero cells, followed by PCR amplification using specific primers. pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His was provided by Ming-Fu Chang (National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan). To generate the plasmids pLenti6-E-V5His, pLenti6-3a-V5His, and pLenti-M-V5His, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets and then ligated into pLenti6-TOPO vectors (Invitrogen). To generate plasmids pCA7-flag-E, pCA7-flag-3a, and pCA7flag-M, pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-3a, and pCA7-HA-M, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets, digested with EcoR I and Not I, and subcloned into the EcoR I-Not I sites of the pCA7-flag-ASC plasmid or pCA7-HA-M2 plasmid, respectively (Ito et al., 2012) . To construct plasmids expressing the E mutant V25F, the mutated E fragments were amplified by inverse PCR with wildtype E-containing plasmids and specific primer sets. The PCR products were cleaved by Dpn I, ligated in a ligase-and T4 kinase-containing reaction and then transformed into DH5α competent cells (TOYOBO). To construct plasmids expressing the 3a mutant 3a-CS, fragments were amplified from wildtype 3a-containing plasmids using 3a-specific primer sets and transformed as described above.
HEK293FT cells were seeded in 24-well cluster plates and transfected with 1 µg pLenti6-E/3a/M-V5His, pLenti-GFP (green fluorescent protein), or pLenti-M2 using polyethylenimine (PEI) Max. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were lysed with RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 1% NP-40, 0.05% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM EDTA). And the lysates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) followed by electroblotting onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. The membranes were incubated over night with mouse anti-V5-tag (R960-25, Invitrogen), mouse anti-influenza A virus M2 (14C2, Abcam), mouse anti-GFP (GF200, Nacalai Tesque), or rabbit antitubulin (DM1A, Santa Cruz) antibodies, followed by horseradish peroxide-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Immuno Research Laboratories) or anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen). After washing 3 times with washing buffer (0.05% Tween-20/PBS), the membranes were exposed using Chemi-Lumi One Super (Nacalai Tesque), and the chemiluminescent signals were captured by an ImageQuant LAS-4000 mini apparatus (GE Healthcare).
To generate lentiviruses expressing V5-tagged SARS-CoV E, 3a, and M proteins, the full-length cDNA encoding each viral protein was cloned into the pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) using the following primers: SARS-CoV E forward, 5 -caccatgtactcattcgtttcgga-3 , and reverse, 5 -gaccagaagatcaggaactc-3 ; SARS-CoV 3a forward, 5caccatggatttgtttatgagatt-3 , and reverse, 5 -caaaggcacgctagtagtcg-3 ; SARS-CoV M forward, 5 -caccatggcagacaacggtactat-3 , and reverse, 5 -ctgtactagcaaagcaatat-3 . Sub-confluent monolayers of HEK293FT cells seeded in a collagen-coated dish (10 cm in diameter) were transfected with 3 µg of pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector expressing each viral protein or EGFP together with ViraPower Packaging Mix (Invitrogen) using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The supernatants containing lentiviruses were harvested and filtered through a 0.45 µm filter (Millipore) at 72-96 h post-transfection (Ito et al., 2012) . The lentiviral titer was then quantified using HT-1080 cells as described previously .
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were plated at a density of 8 × 10 5 in 24-well plate and infected with A/PR8 influenza virus or lentivirus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 or 0.2 for 1 h, respectively. Then, BMMs were stimulated with 1 µg/ml of LPS and cultured for additional 23 h in complete media. Supernatants were collected at 24 h post-infection and centrifuged to remove cell debris. The amount of IL-1β in the supernatants was measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using paired antibodies (eBioscience) (Ichinohe et al., 2010 .
To clarify the cellular localization of the wild-type and mutant 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-flag-3a or pCD7-flag-3a-CS together with 0.5 µg of ER-mCherry or DsRed-Golgi (Ito et al., 2012) . At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing with PBS and blocking with 4% BSA/PBS, the cells were incubated with a mouse anti-flag antibody (M2, Sigma) followed by incubation with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies).
To observe the cellular distribution of NLRP3 in the E-or 3a-expressing cells, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-EV25F, pCA7-HA-3a, pCA7-HA-3a-CS, or pCA7 control vector together with 0.5 µg of pCA7-NLRP3. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed and permeabilized with 4% paraformaldehyde and 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing and blocking, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti-HA (561, MBL) and mouse anti-NLRP3 (Cryo-2; AdipoGen) antibodies, followed by Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) and Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies). Fluorescent signals were observed by confocal microscopy (A1R + , Nikon).
Statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed Student's t-test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
We previously demonstrated that the influenza virus M2 protein (a proton-selective ion channel), its H37G mutant (which has lost its proton selectivity and enables the transport of other cations such as Na + and K + ), and the EMCV 2B protein (a Ca 2+ channel) stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV E protein acts as a Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels that activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto- Torres et al., 2015) . The fact that 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as viroporin prompted us to examine whether it also triggers inflammasome activation. Thus, we first generated lentivirus plasmids expressing V5-tagged proteins and confirmed their expression in HEK293FT cells by immunoblot analysis (Figures 1A-C) . We next transduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed BMMs with the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, 3a, M, influenza virus M2, or EMCV 2B proteins. Consistent with previous reports (Ichinohe et al., Figure 1D) . Similarly, the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins stimulated IL-1β release from LPS-primed BMMs ( Figure 1D) . Furthermore, IL-1β secretion from LPSprimed BMMs co-infected with E-and 3a-expressing lentiviruses was significantly higher than that from SARS-CoV E-expressing lentivirus-infected cells ( Figure 1E) . These data indicated that the expression of SARS-CoV viroporin 3a is sufficient to stimulate IL-1β secretion by LPS-primed BMMs.
Previous studies demonstrated that the N-terminal 40 amino acids of the SARS-CoV E protein are important for ion channel formation, and that mutations N15A and V25F [located in the transmembrane domain (from amino acid residues 7-38)] prevent ion conductivity (Wilson et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2007; Verdia-Baguena et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV 3a protein contains a cysteine-rich domain (amino acid residues 127-133) that is involved in the formation of a homodimer to generate the ion channel (Lu et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009) . Thus, mutation of the cysteine-rich domain blocks the ion conductivity by the 3a protein (Chan et al., 2009) . To this end, we substituted amino acids Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133 within the cysteine-rich domain of the SARS-CoV 3a protein with serine to generate a lentivirus expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutant, 3a-CS (Chan et al., 2009; Figure 2A) . To test whether the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is required to stimulate secretion of IL-1β, we transduced LPSprimed BMMs with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, V25F, 3a, 3a-CS, or M proteins. Consistent with a previous report (Nieto -Torres et al., 2015) , we found that the V25F mutant lentivirus failed to stimulate IL-1β release from BMMs ( Figure 2B) . Notably, the 3a-CS mutant completely abrogated IL-1β secretion (Figure 2B) , suggesting that the ion channel activity of the 3a protein is required for SARS-CoV 3a-induced IL-1β secretion.
FIGURE 4 | NLRP3 inflammasome activation by SARS-CoV 3a. HeLa cells were transfected with the expression plasmid encoding NLRP3 and that encoding HA-tagged SARS-CoV 3a, 3a-CS, E, or V25F, and by with a confocal microscope. Scale bars, 10 µm. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Next, we determined the subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV 3a protein using confocal microscopy. When the SARS-CoV Cell-free supernatants were collected at 24 h (lentiviruses) or 6 h (ATP) post-infection or stimulation, and analyzed for IL-1β by ELISA. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments, and indicate the mean ± SD; * * P < 0.01 and * * * P < 0.001.
3a protein was expressed in HeLa cells, we observed two main distribution patterns. Consistent with previous reports (Yu et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2005) , the 3a protein localized to the Golgi apparatus ( Figure 3A ). In addition, the 3a proteins concentrated in spot structures, which mainly localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (Figure 3B ). By contrast, the 3a-CS mutant was concentrated in the Golgi apparatus rather than in the ER and did not form spot structures (Figures 3A,B) . We next examined the intracellular localization of NLRP3. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome led to a redistribution from the cytosol to the perinuclear space, a process considered as a hallmark of NLRP3 activation (Zhou et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2013; Moriyama et al., 2016) . Although cells expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutants 3a-CS or V25F uniformly expressed NLRP3 throughout the cytoplasm, it was redistributed to the perinuclear region in SARS-CoV 3a-or E-expressing cells (Figure 4) . Together, these data provide evidence that the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for triggering the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Both K + Efflux and ROS Production Are Involved in the IL-1β Release Induced by the SARS-CoV 3a Protein
Finally, we investigated the mechanism by which SARS-CoV 3a triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A previous study showed that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) . In addition, K + efflux is a well-known activator of the NLRP3 inflammasome (Mariathasan et al., 2006; Petrilli et al., 2007) . These observations prompted us to examine whether K + efflux is required for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. To this end, BMMs in K + -rich medium were infected with influenza A virus or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins. In agreement with a previous result (Ichinohe et al., 2010) , we found that IL-1β secretion caused by influenza virus was completely blocked when the extracellular K + concentration was increased to 130 mM ( Figure 5A) . The inhibitory effect of the K + -rich medium was also observed when cells were stimulated with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins ( Figure 5B ). Since mitochondrial ROS are important for NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Nakahira et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011) , we next stimulated BMMs with extracellular ATP or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins in the presence or absence of the antioxidant, Mito-TEMPO, a scavenger that is specific for mitochondrial ROS Trnka et al., 2009) . As reported previously (Nakahira et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012) , treatment of BMMs with Mito-TEMPO completely blocked IL-1β secretion in response to ATP ( Figure 6A) . Similarly, IL-1β release induced by the SARS-CoV E and 3a proteins was significantly inhibited by Mito-TEMPO ( Figure 6B) . These observations indicate that the SARS-CoV 3a protein disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations and causes mitochondrial damages, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
In summary, we found that the ion channel activity of SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In addition, both K + efflux and mitochondrial ROS production are required for SARS-CoV 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion.
Thus far, several models have been proposed to explain NLRP3 inflammasome activation by RNA viruses. First, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Second, viroporins encoded by RNA viruses activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In the case of influenza virus, the proton-selective M2 ion channel in the acidic trans-Golgi network activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010) . Interestingly, an M2 mutant in which histidine was substituted with glycine at position 37 (H37G), causing loss of proton selectivity, enables transport of other cations (i.e., Na + and K + ), thereby leading to enhanced secretion of IL-1β from LPS-primed BMMs and dendritic cells when compared with the wild-type M2 protein.
In addition, the 2B proteins of EMCV, poliovirus, enterovirus 71 (EV71), and human rhinovirus (a member of the Picornaviridae family) triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inducing Ca 2+ flux from the ER and Golgi compartments (Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013) . Furthermore, hepatitis C virus stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β production though its p7 viroporin (Negash et al., 2013; Farag et al., 2017) . Third, a recent study has demonstrated that the 3D protein of EV71 directly interacts with NLRP3 to facilitate the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasome complex (Wang et al., 2017) .
In the case of SARS-CoV, the viroporin E forms forms Ca 2+permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In addition, another viroporin 3a was found to induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Yue et al., 2018) . Although alanine substitution at Cys-133, which is required for dimer or tetramer formation (Lu et al., 2006) , still allows activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by interacting with caspase-1 (Yue et al., 2018) , the ion channel activity-loss mutant 3a-CS (Cys-to-Ser substitution at positions Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133) (Chan et al., 2009 ) completely abrogated IL-1β secretion from LPS-primed BMMs, suggesting that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV has the ability to induce the NLRP3 inflammasome activation by multiple mechanisms. Previous studies show that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV is localized to the plasma membrane (Minakshi and Padhan, 2014) and acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) , thereby (presumably) stimulating the K + efflux at the plasma membrane. Indeed, we found that IL-1β secretion caused by the 3a protein was significantly inhibited when the extracellular K + concentration increased to 130 mM. Although it remains unclear whether another viroporin 8a of SARS-CoV (Castano-Rodriguez et al., 2018) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, these data highlights the importance of viroporins in SARS-CoV-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A better understanding of the mechanism that governs the NLRP3 inflammasome will facilitate the development of more effective interventions for the treatment of infectious diseases and increase our understanding of viral pathogenesis. | Is the SARS coronavirus enveloped? | {
"answer_start": [
1778
],
"text": [
"enveloped"
]
} | false |
287 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viroporin 3a Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361828/
SHA: f02d0c1e8b0109648e578662dc250abe349a033c
Authors: Chen, I-Yin; Moriyama, Miyu; Chang, Ming-Fu; Ichinohe, Takeshi
Date: 2019-01-29
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00050
License: cc-by
Abstract: Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-18. We previously showed that influenza virus M2 or encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 2B proteins stimulate IL-1β secretion following activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, the mechanism by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we provide direct evidence that SARS-CoV 3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages. SARS-CoV 3a was sufficient to cause the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The ion channel activity of the 3a protein was essential for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. While cells uninfected or infected with a lentivirus expressing a 3a protein defective in ion channel activity expressed NLRP3 uniformly throughout the cytoplasm, NLRP3 was redistributed to the perinuclear space in cells infected with a lentivirus expressing the 3a protein. K(+) efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species were important for SARS-CoV 3a-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These results highlight the importance of viroporins, transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins, in virus-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation.
Text: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a member of the genus Betacoronavirus within the family Coronaviridae, is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 30 kb in length. The 5 two-thirds of the genome encodes large polyprotein precursors, open reading frame (ORF) 1 and ORF1b, which are proteolytically cleaved to generate 16 non-structural proteins (Tan et al., 2005) . The 3 one-third of the genome encodes four structural proteins, spike (S), envelope (E), matrix (M) and nucleocapsid (N), and non-structural proteins, along with a set of accessory proteins (3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, and 9b) (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005; Tan et al., 2005) . SARS-CoV is the etiological agent of SARS (Drosten et al., 2003; Fouchier et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003; Kuiken et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003) . At least 8,098 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection, with a fatality rate of 9.6%, were reported to the World Health Organization from November 2002 to July 2003. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, were detected in autopsy tissues from SARS patients (He et al., 2006) . Although dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in lung injury and the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood.
The innate immune systems utilizes pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Medzhitov, 2001; Kawai and Akira, 2010) . Recognition of virus infection plays an important role in limiting virus replication at the early stages of infection. Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) is activated by a wide variety of stimuli, including virus infection (Bauernfeind et al., 2011) . Four models describing activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome have been proposed thus far (Hornung and Latz, 2010; Schroder et al., 2010; Tschopp and Schroder, 2010) . First, the disturbances in intracellular ionic concentrations, including K + efflux and Ca 2+ influx, play an important role (Fernandes-Alnemri et al., 2007; Petrilli et al., 2007; Arlehamn et al., 2010; Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Murakami et al., 2012; Munoz-Planillo et al., 2013) . Second, cathepsin B and L, which are specific lysosomal cysteine proteases, are though to play a role after phagocytosis of cholesterol crystals (Duewell et al., 2010) , fibrillar peptide amyloid-beta , silica crystals, and aluminum salts . Third is the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or mitochondrial DNA from damaged mitochondria (Zhou et al., , 2011 Nakahira et al., 2011; Shimada et al., 2012) . Finally, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Upon activation, the NLRP3 is recruited to the mitochondria via association with mitochondrial antiviral signaling (MAVS) or mitofusin 2 expressed on the outer mitochondrial membrane Subramanian et al., 2013) ; these molecules then recruit the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC) and pro-caspase-1 to form the NLRP3 inflammasome. This event activates the downstream molecule, caspase-1, which catalyzes the proteolytic processing of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms and stimulates their secretion (Kayagaki et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015) .
It is increasingly evident that NLRP3 detects RNA viruses by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) , transmembrane pore-forming proteins, encoded by certain RNA viruses; these proteins alter membrane permeability to ions by forming membrane channels (Tan et al., 2005; Chen and Ichinohe, 2015) . A recent study shows that the SARS-CoV E protein, which comprise only 76 amino acids, forms Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . Although the E and 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, which comprise 274 amino acids and contain three transmembrane domains (Zeng et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006) , are thought to act as Na + /K + and K + channels, respectively (Wilson et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2007; Parthasarathy et al., 2008; Pervushin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011) , the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we examined the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Six-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Committees of the Institute of Medical Science (The University of Tokyo).
Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) were prepared as described previously (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . In brief, bone marrow was obtained from the tibia and femur by flushing with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Nacalai Tesque). Bone marrow cells were cultured for 5 days in DMEM supplemented with 30% L929 cell supernatant containing macrophage colony-stimulating factor, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and L-glutamine (2 mM) at 37 • C/5% CO 2 . HEK293FT cells (a human embryonic kidney cell line) and HeLa cells (a human epithelial carcinoma cell line) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque). MDCK cells (Madin-Darby canine kidney cells) and HT-1080 cells (a human fibrosarcoma cell line) were grown in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM; Nacalai Tesque) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque).
Influenza A virus strain A/PR8 (H1N1) was grown at 35 • C for 2 days in the allantoic cavities of 10-day-old fertile chicken eggs (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . The viral titer was quantified in a standard plaque assay using MDCK cells (Pang et al., 2013) .
Plasmids cDNAs encoding the E and M proteins of SARS-CoV Frankfurt 1 strain (Matsuyama et al., 2005) were obtained by reverse transcription and PCR of total RNA extracted from SARS-CoVinfected Vero cells, followed by PCR amplification using specific primers. pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His was provided by Ming-Fu Chang (National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan). To generate the plasmids pLenti6-E-V5His, pLenti6-3a-V5His, and pLenti-M-V5His, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets and then ligated into pLenti6-TOPO vectors (Invitrogen). To generate plasmids pCA7-flag-E, pCA7-flag-3a, and pCA7flag-M, pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-3a, and pCA7-HA-M, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets, digested with EcoR I and Not I, and subcloned into the EcoR I-Not I sites of the pCA7-flag-ASC plasmid or pCA7-HA-M2 plasmid, respectively (Ito et al., 2012) . To construct plasmids expressing the E mutant V25F, the mutated E fragments were amplified by inverse PCR with wildtype E-containing plasmids and specific primer sets. The PCR products were cleaved by Dpn I, ligated in a ligase-and T4 kinase-containing reaction and then transformed into DH5α competent cells (TOYOBO). To construct plasmids expressing the 3a mutant 3a-CS, fragments were amplified from wildtype 3a-containing plasmids using 3a-specific primer sets and transformed as described above.
HEK293FT cells were seeded in 24-well cluster plates and transfected with 1 µg pLenti6-E/3a/M-V5His, pLenti-GFP (green fluorescent protein), or pLenti-M2 using polyethylenimine (PEI) Max. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were lysed with RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 1% NP-40, 0.05% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM EDTA). And the lysates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) followed by electroblotting onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. The membranes were incubated over night with mouse anti-V5-tag (R960-25, Invitrogen), mouse anti-influenza A virus M2 (14C2, Abcam), mouse anti-GFP (GF200, Nacalai Tesque), or rabbit antitubulin (DM1A, Santa Cruz) antibodies, followed by horseradish peroxide-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Immuno Research Laboratories) or anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen). After washing 3 times with washing buffer (0.05% Tween-20/PBS), the membranes were exposed using Chemi-Lumi One Super (Nacalai Tesque), and the chemiluminescent signals were captured by an ImageQuant LAS-4000 mini apparatus (GE Healthcare).
To generate lentiviruses expressing V5-tagged SARS-CoV E, 3a, and M proteins, the full-length cDNA encoding each viral protein was cloned into the pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) using the following primers: SARS-CoV E forward, 5 -caccatgtactcattcgtttcgga-3 , and reverse, 5 -gaccagaagatcaggaactc-3 ; SARS-CoV 3a forward, 5caccatggatttgtttatgagatt-3 , and reverse, 5 -caaaggcacgctagtagtcg-3 ; SARS-CoV M forward, 5 -caccatggcagacaacggtactat-3 , and reverse, 5 -ctgtactagcaaagcaatat-3 . Sub-confluent monolayers of HEK293FT cells seeded in a collagen-coated dish (10 cm in diameter) were transfected with 3 µg of pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector expressing each viral protein or EGFP together with ViraPower Packaging Mix (Invitrogen) using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The supernatants containing lentiviruses were harvested and filtered through a 0.45 µm filter (Millipore) at 72-96 h post-transfection (Ito et al., 2012) . The lentiviral titer was then quantified using HT-1080 cells as described previously .
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were plated at a density of 8 × 10 5 in 24-well plate and infected with A/PR8 influenza virus or lentivirus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 or 0.2 for 1 h, respectively. Then, BMMs were stimulated with 1 µg/ml of LPS and cultured for additional 23 h in complete media. Supernatants were collected at 24 h post-infection and centrifuged to remove cell debris. The amount of IL-1β in the supernatants was measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using paired antibodies (eBioscience) (Ichinohe et al., 2010 .
To clarify the cellular localization of the wild-type and mutant 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-flag-3a or pCD7-flag-3a-CS together with 0.5 µg of ER-mCherry or DsRed-Golgi (Ito et al., 2012) . At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing with PBS and blocking with 4% BSA/PBS, the cells were incubated with a mouse anti-flag antibody (M2, Sigma) followed by incubation with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies).
To observe the cellular distribution of NLRP3 in the E-or 3a-expressing cells, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-EV25F, pCA7-HA-3a, pCA7-HA-3a-CS, or pCA7 control vector together with 0.5 µg of pCA7-NLRP3. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed and permeabilized with 4% paraformaldehyde and 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing and blocking, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti-HA (561, MBL) and mouse anti-NLRP3 (Cryo-2; AdipoGen) antibodies, followed by Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) and Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies). Fluorescent signals were observed by confocal microscopy (A1R + , Nikon).
Statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed Student's t-test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
We previously demonstrated that the influenza virus M2 protein (a proton-selective ion channel), its H37G mutant (which has lost its proton selectivity and enables the transport of other cations such as Na + and K + ), and the EMCV 2B protein (a Ca 2+ channel) stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV E protein acts as a Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels that activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto- Torres et al., 2015) . The fact that 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as viroporin prompted us to examine whether it also triggers inflammasome activation. Thus, we first generated lentivirus plasmids expressing V5-tagged proteins and confirmed their expression in HEK293FT cells by immunoblot analysis (Figures 1A-C) . We next transduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed BMMs with the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, 3a, M, influenza virus M2, or EMCV 2B proteins. Consistent with previous reports (Ichinohe et al., Figure 1D) . Similarly, the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins stimulated IL-1β release from LPS-primed BMMs ( Figure 1D) . Furthermore, IL-1β secretion from LPSprimed BMMs co-infected with E-and 3a-expressing lentiviruses was significantly higher than that from SARS-CoV E-expressing lentivirus-infected cells ( Figure 1E) . These data indicated that the expression of SARS-CoV viroporin 3a is sufficient to stimulate IL-1β secretion by LPS-primed BMMs.
Previous studies demonstrated that the N-terminal 40 amino acids of the SARS-CoV E protein are important for ion channel formation, and that mutations N15A and V25F [located in the transmembrane domain (from amino acid residues 7-38)] prevent ion conductivity (Wilson et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2007; Verdia-Baguena et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV 3a protein contains a cysteine-rich domain (amino acid residues 127-133) that is involved in the formation of a homodimer to generate the ion channel (Lu et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009) . Thus, mutation of the cysteine-rich domain blocks the ion conductivity by the 3a protein (Chan et al., 2009) . To this end, we substituted amino acids Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133 within the cysteine-rich domain of the SARS-CoV 3a protein with serine to generate a lentivirus expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutant, 3a-CS (Chan et al., 2009; Figure 2A) . To test whether the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is required to stimulate secretion of IL-1β, we transduced LPSprimed BMMs with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, V25F, 3a, 3a-CS, or M proteins. Consistent with a previous report (Nieto -Torres et al., 2015) , we found that the V25F mutant lentivirus failed to stimulate IL-1β release from BMMs ( Figure 2B) . Notably, the 3a-CS mutant completely abrogated IL-1β secretion (Figure 2B) , suggesting that the ion channel activity of the 3a protein is required for SARS-CoV 3a-induced IL-1β secretion.
FIGURE 4 | NLRP3 inflammasome activation by SARS-CoV 3a. HeLa cells were transfected with the expression plasmid encoding NLRP3 and that encoding HA-tagged SARS-CoV 3a, 3a-CS, E, or V25F, and by with a confocal microscope. Scale bars, 10 µm. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Next, we determined the subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV 3a protein using confocal microscopy. When the SARS-CoV Cell-free supernatants were collected at 24 h (lentiviruses) or 6 h (ATP) post-infection or stimulation, and analyzed for IL-1β by ELISA. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments, and indicate the mean ± SD; * * P < 0.01 and * * * P < 0.001.
3a protein was expressed in HeLa cells, we observed two main distribution patterns. Consistent with previous reports (Yu et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2005) , the 3a protein localized to the Golgi apparatus ( Figure 3A ). In addition, the 3a proteins concentrated in spot structures, which mainly localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (Figure 3B ). By contrast, the 3a-CS mutant was concentrated in the Golgi apparatus rather than in the ER and did not form spot structures (Figures 3A,B) . We next examined the intracellular localization of NLRP3. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome led to a redistribution from the cytosol to the perinuclear space, a process considered as a hallmark of NLRP3 activation (Zhou et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2013; Moriyama et al., 2016) . Although cells expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutants 3a-CS or V25F uniformly expressed NLRP3 throughout the cytoplasm, it was redistributed to the perinuclear region in SARS-CoV 3a-or E-expressing cells (Figure 4) . Together, these data provide evidence that the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for triggering the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Both K + Efflux and ROS Production Are Involved in the IL-1β Release Induced by the SARS-CoV 3a Protein
Finally, we investigated the mechanism by which SARS-CoV 3a triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A previous study showed that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) . In addition, K + efflux is a well-known activator of the NLRP3 inflammasome (Mariathasan et al., 2006; Petrilli et al., 2007) . These observations prompted us to examine whether K + efflux is required for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. To this end, BMMs in K + -rich medium were infected with influenza A virus or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins. In agreement with a previous result (Ichinohe et al., 2010) , we found that IL-1β secretion caused by influenza virus was completely blocked when the extracellular K + concentration was increased to 130 mM ( Figure 5A) . The inhibitory effect of the K + -rich medium was also observed when cells were stimulated with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins ( Figure 5B ). Since mitochondrial ROS are important for NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Nakahira et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011) , we next stimulated BMMs with extracellular ATP or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins in the presence or absence of the antioxidant, Mito-TEMPO, a scavenger that is specific for mitochondrial ROS Trnka et al., 2009) . As reported previously (Nakahira et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012) , treatment of BMMs with Mito-TEMPO completely blocked IL-1β secretion in response to ATP ( Figure 6A) . Similarly, IL-1β release induced by the SARS-CoV E and 3a proteins was significantly inhibited by Mito-TEMPO ( Figure 6B) . These observations indicate that the SARS-CoV 3a protein disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations and causes mitochondrial damages, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
In summary, we found that the ion channel activity of SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In addition, both K + efflux and mitochondrial ROS production are required for SARS-CoV 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion.
Thus far, several models have been proposed to explain NLRP3 inflammasome activation by RNA viruses. First, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Second, viroporins encoded by RNA viruses activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In the case of influenza virus, the proton-selective M2 ion channel in the acidic trans-Golgi network activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010) . Interestingly, an M2 mutant in which histidine was substituted with glycine at position 37 (H37G), causing loss of proton selectivity, enables transport of other cations (i.e., Na + and K + ), thereby leading to enhanced secretion of IL-1β from LPS-primed BMMs and dendritic cells when compared with the wild-type M2 protein.
In addition, the 2B proteins of EMCV, poliovirus, enterovirus 71 (EV71), and human rhinovirus (a member of the Picornaviridae family) triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inducing Ca 2+ flux from the ER and Golgi compartments (Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013) . Furthermore, hepatitis C virus stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β production though its p7 viroporin (Negash et al., 2013; Farag et al., 2017) . Third, a recent study has demonstrated that the 3D protein of EV71 directly interacts with NLRP3 to facilitate the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasome complex (Wang et al., 2017) .
In the case of SARS-CoV, the viroporin E forms forms Ca 2+permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In addition, another viroporin 3a was found to induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Yue et al., 2018) . Although alanine substitution at Cys-133, which is required for dimer or tetramer formation (Lu et al., 2006) , still allows activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by interacting with caspase-1 (Yue et al., 2018) , the ion channel activity-loss mutant 3a-CS (Cys-to-Ser substitution at positions Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133) (Chan et al., 2009 ) completely abrogated IL-1β secretion from LPS-primed BMMs, suggesting that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV has the ability to induce the NLRP3 inflammasome activation by multiple mechanisms. Previous studies show that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV is localized to the plasma membrane (Minakshi and Padhan, 2014) and acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) , thereby (presumably) stimulating the K + efflux at the plasma membrane. Indeed, we found that IL-1β secretion caused by the 3a protein was significantly inhibited when the extracellular K + concentration increased to 130 mM. Although it remains unclear whether another viroporin 8a of SARS-CoV (Castano-Rodriguez et al., 2018) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, these data highlights the importance of viroporins in SARS-CoV-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A better understanding of the mechanism that governs the NLRP3 inflammasome will facilitate the development of more effective interventions for the treatment of infectious diseases and increase our understanding of viral pathogenesis. | Is the SARS coronavirus single-stranded or double-stranded? | {
"answer_start": [
1801
],
"text": [
"single-stranded"
]
} | false |
288 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viroporin 3a Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361828/
SHA: f02d0c1e8b0109648e578662dc250abe349a033c
Authors: Chen, I-Yin; Moriyama, Miyu; Chang, Ming-Fu; Ichinohe, Takeshi
Date: 2019-01-29
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00050
License: cc-by
Abstract: Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-18. We previously showed that influenza virus M2 or encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 2B proteins stimulate IL-1β secretion following activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, the mechanism by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we provide direct evidence that SARS-CoV 3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages. SARS-CoV 3a was sufficient to cause the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The ion channel activity of the 3a protein was essential for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. While cells uninfected or infected with a lentivirus expressing a 3a protein defective in ion channel activity expressed NLRP3 uniformly throughout the cytoplasm, NLRP3 was redistributed to the perinuclear space in cells infected with a lentivirus expressing the 3a protein. K(+) efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species were important for SARS-CoV 3a-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These results highlight the importance of viroporins, transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins, in virus-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation.
Text: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a member of the genus Betacoronavirus within the family Coronaviridae, is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 30 kb in length. The 5 two-thirds of the genome encodes large polyprotein precursors, open reading frame (ORF) 1 and ORF1b, which are proteolytically cleaved to generate 16 non-structural proteins (Tan et al., 2005) . The 3 one-third of the genome encodes four structural proteins, spike (S), envelope (E), matrix (M) and nucleocapsid (N), and non-structural proteins, along with a set of accessory proteins (3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, and 9b) (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005; Tan et al., 2005) . SARS-CoV is the etiological agent of SARS (Drosten et al., 2003; Fouchier et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003; Kuiken et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003) . At least 8,098 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection, with a fatality rate of 9.6%, were reported to the World Health Organization from November 2002 to July 2003. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, were detected in autopsy tissues from SARS patients (He et al., 2006) . Although dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in lung injury and the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood.
The innate immune systems utilizes pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Medzhitov, 2001; Kawai and Akira, 2010) . Recognition of virus infection plays an important role in limiting virus replication at the early stages of infection. Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) is activated by a wide variety of stimuli, including virus infection (Bauernfeind et al., 2011) . Four models describing activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome have been proposed thus far (Hornung and Latz, 2010; Schroder et al., 2010; Tschopp and Schroder, 2010) . First, the disturbances in intracellular ionic concentrations, including K + efflux and Ca 2+ influx, play an important role (Fernandes-Alnemri et al., 2007; Petrilli et al., 2007; Arlehamn et al., 2010; Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Murakami et al., 2012; Munoz-Planillo et al., 2013) . Second, cathepsin B and L, which are specific lysosomal cysteine proteases, are though to play a role after phagocytosis of cholesterol crystals (Duewell et al., 2010) , fibrillar peptide amyloid-beta , silica crystals, and aluminum salts . Third is the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or mitochondrial DNA from damaged mitochondria (Zhou et al., , 2011 Nakahira et al., 2011; Shimada et al., 2012) . Finally, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Upon activation, the NLRP3 is recruited to the mitochondria via association with mitochondrial antiviral signaling (MAVS) or mitofusin 2 expressed on the outer mitochondrial membrane Subramanian et al., 2013) ; these molecules then recruit the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC) and pro-caspase-1 to form the NLRP3 inflammasome. This event activates the downstream molecule, caspase-1, which catalyzes the proteolytic processing of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms and stimulates their secretion (Kayagaki et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015) .
It is increasingly evident that NLRP3 detects RNA viruses by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) , transmembrane pore-forming proteins, encoded by certain RNA viruses; these proteins alter membrane permeability to ions by forming membrane channels (Tan et al., 2005; Chen and Ichinohe, 2015) . A recent study shows that the SARS-CoV E protein, which comprise only 76 amino acids, forms Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . Although the E and 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, which comprise 274 amino acids and contain three transmembrane domains (Zeng et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006) , are thought to act as Na + /K + and K + channels, respectively (Wilson et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2007; Parthasarathy et al., 2008; Pervushin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011) , the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we examined the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Six-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Committees of the Institute of Medical Science (The University of Tokyo).
Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) were prepared as described previously (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . In brief, bone marrow was obtained from the tibia and femur by flushing with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Nacalai Tesque). Bone marrow cells were cultured for 5 days in DMEM supplemented with 30% L929 cell supernatant containing macrophage colony-stimulating factor, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and L-glutamine (2 mM) at 37 • C/5% CO 2 . HEK293FT cells (a human embryonic kidney cell line) and HeLa cells (a human epithelial carcinoma cell line) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque). MDCK cells (Madin-Darby canine kidney cells) and HT-1080 cells (a human fibrosarcoma cell line) were grown in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM; Nacalai Tesque) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque).
Influenza A virus strain A/PR8 (H1N1) was grown at 35 • C for 2 days in the allantoic cavities of 10-day-old fertile chicken eggs (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . The viral titer was quantified in a standard plaque assay using MDCK cells (Pang et al., 2013) .
Plasmids cDNAs encoding the E and M proteins of SARS-CoV Frankfurt 1 strain (Matsuyama et al., 2005) were obtained by reverse transcription and PCR of total RNA extracted from SARS-CoVinfected Vero cells, followed by PCR amplification using specific primers. pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His was provided by Ming-Fu Chang (National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan). To generate the plasmids pLenti6-E-V5His, pLenti6-3a-V5His, and pLenti-M-V5His, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets and then ligated into pLenti6-TOPO vectors (Invitrogen). To generate plasmids pCA7-flag-E, pCA7-flag-3a, and pCA7flag-M, pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-3a, and pCA7-HA-M, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets, digested with EcoR I and Not I, and subcloned into the EcoR I-Not I sites of the pCA7-flag-ASC plasmid or pCA7-HA-M2 plasmid, respectively (Ito et al., 2012) . To construct plasmids expressing the E mutant V25F, the mutated E fragments were amplified by inverse PCR with wildtype E-containing plasmids and specific primer sets. The PCR products were cleaved by Dpn I, ligated in a ligase-and T4 kinase-containing reaction and then transformed into DH5α competent cells (TOYOBO). To construct plasmids expressing the 3a mutant 3a-CS, fragments were amplified from wildtype 3a-containing plasmids using 3a-specific primer sets and transformed as described above.
HEK293FT cells were seeded in 24-well cluster plates and transfected with 1 µg pLenti6-E/3a/M-V5His, pLenti-GFP (green fluorescent protein), or pLenti-M2 using polyethylenimine (PEI) Max. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were lysed with RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 1% NP-40, 0.05% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM EDTA). And the lysates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) followed by electroblotting onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. The membranes were incubated over night with mouse anti-V5-tag (R960-25, Invitrogen), mouse anti-influenza A virus M2 (14C2, Abcam), mouse anti-GFP (GF200, Nacalai Tesque), or rabbit antitubulin (DM1A, Santa Cruz) antibodies, followed by horseradish peroxide-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Immuno Research Laboratories) or anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen). After washing 3 times with washing buffer (0.05% Tween-20/PBS), the membranes were exposed using Chemi-Lumi One Super (Nacalai Tesque), and the chemiluminescent signals were captured by an ImageQuant LAS-4000 mini apparatus (GE Healthcare).
To generate lentiviruses expressing V5-tagged SARS-CoV E, 3a, and M proteins, the full-length cDNA encoding each viral protein was cloned into the pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) using the following primers: SARS-CoV E forward, 5 -caccatgtactcattcgtttcgga-3 , and reverse, 5 -gaccagaagatcaggaactc-3 ; SARS-CoV 3a forward, 5caccatggatttgtttatgagatt-3 , and reverse, 5 -caaaggcacgctagtagtcg-3 ; SARS-CoV M forward, 5 -caccatggcagacaacggtactat-3 , and reverse, 5 -ctgtactagcaaagcaatat-3 . Sub-confluent monolayers of HEK293FT cells seeded in a collagen-coated dish (10 cm in diameter) were transfected with 3 µg of pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector expressing each viral protein or EGFP together with ViraPower Packaging Mix (Invitrogen) using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The supernatants containing lentiviruses were harvested and filtered through a 0.45 µm filter (Millipore) at 72-96 h post-transfection (Ito et al., 2012) . The lentiviral titer was then quantified using HT-1080 cells as described previously .
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were plated at a density of 8 × 10 5 in 24-well plate and infected with A/PR8 influenza virus or lentivirus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 or 0.2 for 1 h, respectively. Then, BMMs were stimulated with 1 µg/ml of LPS and cultured for additional 23 h in complete media. Supernatants were collected at 24 h post-infection and centrifuged to remove cell debris. The amount of IL-1β in the supernatants was measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using paired antibodies (eBioscience) (Ichinohe et al., 2010 .
To clarify the cellular localization of the wild-type and mutant 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-flag-3a or pCD7-flag-3a-CS together with 0.5 µg of ER-mCherry or DsRed-Golgi (Ito et al., 2012) . At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing with PBS and blocking with 4% BSA/PBS, the cells were incubated with a mouse anti-flag antibody (M2, Sigma) followed by incubation with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies).
To observe the cellular distribution of NLRP3 in the E-or 3a-expressing cells, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-EV25F, pCA7-HA-3a, pCA7-HA-3a-CS, or pCA7 control vector together with 0.5 µg of pCA7-NLRP3. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed and permeabilized with 4% paraformaldehyde and 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing and blocking, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti-HA (561, MBL) and mouse anti-NLRP3 (Cryo-2; AdipoGen) antibodies, followed by Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) and Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies). Fluorescent signals were observed by confocal microscopy (A1R + , Nikon).
Statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed Student's t-test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
We previously demonstrated that the influenza virus M2 protein (a proton-selective ion channel), its H37G mutant (which has lost its proton selectivity and enables the transport of other cations such as Na + and K + ), and the EMCV 2B protein (a Ca 2+ channel) stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV E protein acts as a Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels that activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto- Torres et al., 2015) . The fact that 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as viroporin prompted us to examine whether it also triggers inflammasome activation. Thus, we first generated lentivirus plasmids expressing V5-tagged proteins and confirmed their expression in HEK293FT cells by immunoblot analysis (Figures 1A-C) . We next transduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed BMMs with the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, 3a, M, influenza virus M2, or EMCV 2B proteins. Consistent with previous reports (Ichinohe et al., Figure 1D) . Similarly, the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins stimulated IL-1β release from LPS-primed BMMs ( Figure 1D) . Furthermore, IL-1β secretion from LPSprimed BMMs co-infected with E-and 3a-expressing lentiviruses was significantly higher than that from SARS-CoV E-expressing lentivirus-infected cells ( Figure 1E) . These data indicated that the expression of SARS-CoV viroporin 3a is sufficient to stimulate IL-1β secretion by LPS-primed BMMs.
Previous studies demonstrated that the N-terminal 40 amino acids of the SARS-CoV E protein are important for ion channel formation, and that mutations N15A and V25F [located in the transmembrane domain (from amino acid residues 7-38)] prevent ion conductivity (Wilson et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2007; Verdia-Baguena et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV 3a protein contains a cysteine-rich domain (amino acid residues 127-133) that is involved in the formation of a homodimer to generate the ion channel (Lu et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009) . Thus, mutation of the cysteine-rich domain blocks the ion conductivity by the 3a protein (Chan et al., 2009) . To this end, we substituted amino acids Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133 within the cysteine-rich domain of the SARS-CoV 3a protein with serine to generate a lentivirus expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutant, 3a-CS (Chan et al., 2009; Figure 2A) . To test whether the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is required to stimulate secretion of IL-1β, we transduced LPSprimed BMMs with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, V25F, 3a, 3a-CS, or M proteins. Consistent with a previous report (Nieto -Torres et al., 2015) , we found that the V25F mutant lentivirus failed to stimulate IL-1β release from BMMs ( Figure 2B) . Notably, the 3a-CS mutant completely abrogated IL-1β secretion (Figure 2B) , suggesting that the ion channel activity of the 3a protein is required for SARS-CoV 3a-induced IL-1β secretion.
FIGURE 4 | NLRP3 inflammasome activation by SARS-CoV 3a. HeLa cells were transfected with the expression plasmid encoding NLRP3 and that encoding HA-tagged SARS-CoV 3a, 3a-CS, E, or V25F, and by with a confocal microscope. Scale bars, 10 µm. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Next, we determined the subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV 3a protein using confocal microscopy. When the SARS-CoV Cell-free supernatants were collected at 24 h (lentiviruses) or 6 h (ATP) post-infection or stimulation, and analyzed for IL-1β by ELISA. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments, and indicate the mean ± SD; * * P < 0.01 and * * * P < 0.001.
3a protein was expressed in HeLa cells, we observed two main distribution patterns. Consistent with previous reports (Yu et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2005) , the 3a protein localized to the Golgi apparatus ( Figure 3A ). In addition, the 3a proteins concentrated in spot structures, which mainly localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (Figure 3B ). By contrast, the 3a-CS mutant was concentrated in the Golgi apparatus rather than in the ER and did not form spot structures (Figures 3A,B) . We next examined the intracellular localization of NLRP3. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome led to a redistribution from the cytosol to the perinuclear space, a process considered as a hallmark of NLRP3 activation (Zhou et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2013; Moriyama et al., 2016) . Although cells expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutants 3a-CS or V25F uniformly expressed NLRP3 throughout the cytoplasm, it was redistributed to the perinuclear region in SARS-CoV 3a-or E-expressing cells (Figure 4) . Together, these data provide evidence that the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for triggering the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Both K + Efflux and ROS Production Are Involved in the IL-1β Release Induced by the SARS-CoV 3a Protein
Finally, we investigated the mechanism by which SARS-CoV 3a triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A previous study showed that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) . In addition, K + efflux is a well-known activator of the NLRP3 inflammasome (Mariathasan et al., 2006; Petrilli et al., 2007) . These observations prompted us to examine whether K + efflux is required for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. To this end, BMMs in K + -rich medium were infected with influenza A virus or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins. In agreement with a previous result (Ichinohe et al., 2010) , we found that IL-1β secretion caused by influenza virus was completely blocked when the extracellular K + concentration was increased to 130 mM ( Figure 5A) . The inhibitory effect of the K + -rich medium was also observed when cells were stimulated with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins ( Figure 5B ). Since mitochondrial ROS are important for NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Nakahira et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011) , we next stimulated BMMs with extracellular ATP or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins in the presence or absence of the antioxidant, Mito-TEMPO, a scavenger that is specific for mitochondrial ROS Trnka et al., 2009) . As reported previously (Nakahira et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012) , treatment of BMMs with Mito-TEMPO completely blocked IL-1β secretion in response to ATP ( Figure 6A) . Similarly, IL-1β release induced by the SARS-CoV E and 3a proteins was significantly inhibited by Mito-TEMPO ( Figure 6B) . These observations indicate that the SARS-CoV 3a protein disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations and causes mitochondrial damages, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
In summary, we found that the ion channel activity of SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In addition, both K + efflux and mitochondrial ROS production are required for SARS-CoV 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion.
Thus far, several models have been proposed to explain NLRP3 inflammasome activation by RNA viruses. First, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Second, viroporins encoded by RNA viruses activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In the case of influenza virus, the proton-selective M2 ion channel in the acidic trans-Golgi network activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010) . Interestingly, an M2 mutant in which histidine was substituted with glycine at position 37 (H37G), causing loss of proton selectivity, enables transport of other cations (i.e., Na + and K + ), thereby leading to enhanced secretion of IL-1β from LPS-primed BMMs and dendritic cells when compared with the wild-type M2 protein.
In addition, the 2B proteins of EMCV, poliovirus, enterovirus 71 (EV71), and human rhinovirus (a member of the Picornaviridae family) triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inducing Ca 2+ flux from the ER and Golgi compartments (Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013) . Furthermore, hepatitis C virus stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β production though its p7 viroporin (Negash et al., 2013; Farag et al., 2017) . Third, a recent study has demonstrated that the 3D protein of EV71 directly interacts with NLRP3 to facilitate the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasome complex (Wang et al., 2017) .
In the case of SARS-CoV, the viroporin E forms forms Ca 2+permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In addition, another viroporin 3a was found to induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Yue et al., 2018) . Although alanine substitution at Cys-133, which is required for dimer or tetramer formation (Lu et al., 2006) , still allows activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by interacting with caspase-1 (Yue et al., 2018) , the ion channel activity-loss mutant 3a-CS (Cys-to-Ser substitution at positions Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133) (Chan et al., 2009 ) completely abrogated IL-1β secretion from LPS-primed BMMs, suggesting that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV has the ability to induce the NLRP3 inflammasome activation by multiple mechanisms. Previous studies show that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV is localized to the plasma membrane (Minakshi and Padhan, 2014) and acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) , thereby (presumably) stimulating the K + efflux at the plasma membrane. Indeed, we found that IL-1β secretion caused by the 3a protein was significantly inhibited when the extracellular K + concentration increased to 130 mM. Although it remains unclear whether another viroporin 8a of SARS-CoV (Castano-Rodriguez et al., 2018) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, these data highlights the importance of viroporins in SARS-CoV-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A better understanding of the mechanism that governs the NLRP3 inflammasome will facilitate the development of more effective interventions for the treatment of infectious diseases and increase our understanding of viral pathogenesis. | How many laboratory-confirmed cases of SARS coronavirus infections were reported between November 2002 and July 2003? | {
"answer_start": [
2507
],
"text": [
"At least 8,098"
]
} | false |
289 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viroporin 3a Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361828/
SHA: f02d0c1e8b0109648e578662dc250abe349a033c
Authors: Chen, I-Yin; Moriyama, Miyu; Chang, Ming-Fu; Ichinohe, Takeshi
Date: 2019-01-29
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00050
License: cc-by
Abstract: Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-18. We previously showed that influenza virus M2 or encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 2B proteins stimulate IL-1β secretion following activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, the mechanism by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we provide direct evidence that SARS-CoV 3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages. SARS-CoV 3a was sufficient to cause the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The ion channel activity of the 3a protein was essential for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. While cells uninfected or infected with a lentivirus expressing a 3a protein defective in ion channel activity expressed NLRP3 uniformly throughout the cytoplasm, NLRP3 was redistributed to the perinuclear space in cells infected with a lentivirus expressing the 3a protein. K(+) efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species were important for SARS-CoV 3a-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These results highlight the importance of viroporins, transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins, in virus-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation.
Text: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a member of the genus Betacoronavirus within the family Coronaviridae, is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 30 kb in length. The 5 two-thirds of the genome encodes large polyprotein precursors, open reading frame (ORF) 1 and ORF1b, which are proteolytically cleaved to generate 16 non-structural proteins (Tan et al., 2005) . The 3 one-third of the genome encodes four structural proteins, spike (S), envelope (E), matrix (M) and nucleocapsid (N), and non-structural proteins, along with a set of accessory proteins (3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, and 9b) (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005; Tan et al., 2005) . SARS-CoV is the etiological agent of SARS (Drosten et al., 2003; Fouchier et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003; Kuiken et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003) . At least 8,098 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection, with a fatality rate of 9.6%, were reported to the World Health Organization from November 2002 to July 2003. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, were detected in autopsy tissues from SARS patients (He et al., 2006) . Although dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in lung injury and the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood.
The innate immune systems utilizes pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Medzhitov, 2001; Kawai and Akira, 2010) . Recognition of virus infection plays an important role in limiting virus replication at the early stages of infection. Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) is activated by a wide variety of stimuli, including virus infection (Bauernfeind et al., 2011) . Four models describing activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome have been proposed thus far (Hornung and Latz, 2010; Schroder et al., 2010; Tschopp and Schroder, 2010) . First, the disturbances in intracellular ionic concentrations, including K + efflux and Ca 2+ influx, play an important role (Fernandes-Alnemri et al., 2007; Petrilli et al., 2007; Arlehamn et al., 2010; Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Murakami et al., 2012; Munoz-Planillo et al., 2013) . Second, cathepsin B and L, which are specific lysosomal cysteine proteases, are though to play a role after phagocytosis of cholesterol crystals (Duewell et al., 2010) , fibrillar peptide amyloid-beta , silica crystals, and aluminum salts . Third is the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or mitochondrial DNA from damaged mitochondria (Zhou et al., , 2011 Nakahira et al., 2011; Shimada et al., 2012) . Finally, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Upon activation, the NLRP3 is recruited to the mitochondria via association with mitochondrial antiviral signaling (MAVS) or mitofusin 2 expressed on the outer mitochondrial membrane Subramanian et al., 2013) ; these molecules then recruit the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC) and pro-caspase-1 to form the NLRP3 inflammasome. This event activates the downstream molecule, caspase-1, which catalyzes the proteolytic processing of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms and stimulates their secretion (Kayagaki et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015) .
It is increasingly evident that NLRP3 detects RNA viruses by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) , transmembrane pore-forming proteins, encoded by certain RNA viruses; these proteins alter membrane permeability to ions by forming membrane channels (Tan et al., 2005; Chen and Ichinohe, 2015) . A recent study shows that the SARS-CoV E protein, which comprise only 76 amino acids, forms Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . Although the E and 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, which comprise 274 amino acids and contain three transmembrane domains (Zeng et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006) , are thought to act as Na + /K + and K + channels, respectively (Wilson et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2007; Parthasarathy et al., 2008; Pervushin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011) , the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we examined the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Six-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Committees of the Institute of Medical Science (The University of Tokyo).
Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) were prepared as described previously (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . In brief, bone marrow was obtained from the tibia and femur by flushing with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Nacalai Tesque). Bone marrow cells were cultured for 5 days in DMEM supplemented with 30% L929 cell supernatant containing macrophage colony-stimulating factor, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and L-glutamine (2 mM) at 37 • C/5% CO 2 . HEK293FT cells (a human embryonic kidney cell line) and HeLa cells (a human epithelial carcinoma cell line) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque). MDCK cells (Madin-Darby canine kidney cells) and HT-1080 cells (a human fibrosarcoma cell line) were grown in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM; Nacalai Tesque) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque).
Influenza A virus strain A/PR8 (H1N1) was grown at 35 • C for 2 days in the allantoic cavities of 10-day-old fertile chicken eggs (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . The viral titer was quantified in a standard plaque assay using MDCK cells (Pang et al., 2013) .
Plasmids cDNAs encoding the E and M proteins of SARS-CoV Frankfurt 1 strain (Matsuyama et al., 2005) were obtained by reverse transcription and PCR of total RNA extracted from SARS-CoVinfected Vero cells, followed by PCR amplification using specific primers. pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His was provided by Ming-Fu Chang (National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan). To generate the plasmids pLenti6-E-V5His, pLenti6-3a-V5His, and pLenti-M-V5His, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets and then ligated into pLenti6-TOPO vectors (Invitrogen). To generate plasmids pCA7-flag-E, pCA7-flag-3a, and pCA7flag-M, pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-3a, and pCA7-HA-M, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets, digested with EcoR I and Not I, and subcloned into the EcoR I-Not I sites of the pCA7-flag-ASC plasmid or pCA7-HA-M2 plasmid, respectively (Ito et al., 2012) . To construct plasmids expressing the E mutant V25F, the mutated E fragments were amplified by inverse PCR with wildtype E-containing plasmids and specific primer sets. The PCR products were cleaved by Dpn I, ligated in a ligase-and T4 kinase-containing reaction and then transformed into DH5α competent cells (TOYOBO). To construct plasmids expressing the 3a mutant 3a-CS, fragments were amplified from wildtype 3a-containing plasmids using 3a-specific primer sets and transformed as described above.
HEK293FT cells were seeded in 24-well cluster plates and transfected with 1 µg pLenti6-E/3a/M-V5His, pLenti-GFP (green fluorescent protein), or pLenti-M2 using polyethylenimine (PEI) Max. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were lysed with RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 1% NP-40, 0.05% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM EDTA). And the lysates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) followed by electroblotting onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. The membranes were incubated over night with mouse anti-V5-tag (R960-25, Invitrogen), mouse anti-influenza A virus M2 (14C2, Abcam), mouse anti-GFP (GF200, Nacalai Tesque), or rabbit antitubulin (DM1A, Santa Cruz) antibodies, followed by horseradish peroxide-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Immuno Research Laboratories) or anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen). After washing 3 times with washing buffer (0.05% Tween-20/PBS), the membranes were exposed using Chemi-Lumi One Super (Nacalai Tesque), and the chemiluminescent signals were captured by an ImageQuant LAS-4000 mini apparatus (GE Healthcare).
To generate lentiviruses expressing V5-tagged SARS-CoV E, 3a, and M proteins, the full-length cDNA encoding each viral protein was cloned into the pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) using the following primers: SARS-CoV E forward, 5 -caccatgtactcattcgtttcgga-3 , and reverse, 5 -gaccagaagatcaggaactc-3 ; SARS-CoV 3a forward, 5caccatggatttgtttatgagatt-3 , and reverse, 5 -caaaggcacgctagtagtcg-3 ; SARS-CoV M forward, 5 -caccatggcagacaacggtactat-3 , and reverse, 5 -ctgtactagcaaagcaatat-3 . Sub-confluent monolayers of HEK293FT cells seeded in a collagen-coated dish (10 cm in diameter) were transfected with 3 µg of pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector expressing each viral protein or EGFP together with ViraPower Packaging Mix (Invitrogen) using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The supernatants containing lentiviruses were harvested and filtered through a 0.45 µm filter (Millipore) at 72-96 h post-transfection (Ito et al., 2012) . The lentiviral titer was then quantified using HT-1080 cells as described previously .
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were plated at a density of 8 × 10 5 in 24-well plate and infected with A/PR8 influenza virus or lentivirus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 or 0.2 for 1 h, respectively. Then, BMMs were stimulated with 1 µg/ml of LPS and cultured for additional 23 h in complete media. Supernatants were collected at 24 h post-infection and centrifuged to remove cell debris. The amount of IL-1β in the supernatants was measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using paired antibodies (eBioscience) (Ichinohe et al., 2010 .
To clarify the cellular localization of the wild-type and mutant 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-flag-3a or pCD7-flag-3a-CS together with 0.5 µg of ER-mCherry or DsRed-Golgi (Ito et al., 2012) . At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing with PBS and blocking with 4% BSA/PBS, the cells were incubated with a mouse anti-flag antibody (M2, Sigma) followed by incubation with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies).
To observe the cellular distribution of NLRP3 in the E-or 3a-expressing cells, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-EV25F, pCA7-HA-3a, pCA7-HA-3a-CS, or pCA7 control vector together with 0.5 µg of pCA7-NLRP3. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed and permeabilized with 4% paraformaldehyde and 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing and blocking, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti-HA (561, MBL) and mouse anti-NLRP3 (Cryo-2; AdipoGen) antibodies, followed by Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) and Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies). Fluorescent signals were observed by confocal microscopy (A1R + , Nikon).
Statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed Student's t-test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
We previously demonstrated that the influenza virus M2 protein (a proton-selective ion channel), its H37G mutant (which has lost its proton selectivity and enables the transport of other cations such as Na + and K + ), and the EMCV 2B protein (a Ca 2+ channel) stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV E protein acts as a Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels that activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto- Torres et al., 2015) . The fact that 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as viroporin prompted us to examine whether it also triggers inflammasome activation. Thus, we first generated lentivirus plasmids expressing V5-tagged proteins and confirmed their expression in HEK293FT cells by immunoblot analysis (Figures 1A-C) . We next transduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed BMMs with the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, 3a, M, influenza virus M2, or EMCV 2B proteins. Consistent with previous reports (Ichinohe et al., Figure 1D) . Similarly, the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins stimulated IL-1β release from LPS-primed BMMs ( Figure 1D) . Furthermore, IL-1β secretion from LPSprimed BMMs co-infected with E-and 3a-expressing lentiviruses was significantly higher than that from SARS-CoV E-expressing lentivirus-infected cells ( Figure 1E) . These data indicated that the expression of SARS-CoV viroporin 3a is sufficient to stimulate IL-1β secretion by LPS-primed BMMs.
Previous studies demonstrated that the N-terminal 40 amino acids of the SARS-CoV E protein are important for ion channel formation, and that mutations N15A and V25F [located in the transmembrane domain (from amino acid residues 7-38)] prevent ion conductivity (Wilson et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2007; Verdia-Baguena et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV 3a protein contains a cysteine-rich domain (amino acid residues 127-133) that is involved in the formation of a homodimer to generate the ion channel (Lu et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009) . Thus, mutation of the cysteine-rich domain blocks the ion conductivity by the 3a protein (Chan et al., 2009) . To this end, we substituted amino acids Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133 within the cysteine-rich domain of the SARS-CoV 3a protein with serine to generate a lentivirus expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutant, 3a-CS (Chan et al., 2009; Figure 2A) . To test whether the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is required to stimulate secretion of IL-1β, we transduced LPSprimed BMMs with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, V25F, 3a, 3a-CS, or M proteins. Consistent with a previous report (Nieto -Torres et al., 2015) , we found that the V25F mutant lentivirus failed to stimulate IL-1β release from BMMs ( Figure 2B) . Notably, the 3a-CS mutant completely abrogated IL-1β secretion (Figure 2B) , suggesting that the ion channel activity of the 3a protein is required for SARS-CoV 3a-induced IL-1β secretion.
FIGURE 4 | NLRP3 inflammasome activation by SARS-CoV 3a. HeLa cells were transfected with the expression plasmid encoding NLRP3 and that encoding HA-tagged SARS-CoV 3a, 3a-CS, E, or V25F, and by with a confocal microscope. Scale bars, 10 µm. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Next, we determined the subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV 3a protein using confocal microscopy. When the SARS-CoV Cell-free supernatants were collected at 24 h (lentiviruses) or 6 h (ATP) post-infection or stimulation, and analyzed for IL-1β by ELISA. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments, and indicate the mean ± SD; * * P < 0.01 and * * * P < 0.001.
3a protein was expressed in HeLa cells, we observed two main distribution patterns. Consistent with previous reports (Yu et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2005) , the 3a protein localized to the Golgi apparatus ( Figure 3A ). In addition, the 3a proteins concentrated in spot structures, which mainly localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (Figure 3B ). By contrast, the 3a-CS mutant was concentrated in the Golgi apparatus rather than in the ER and did not form spot structures (Figures 3A,B) . We next examined the intracellular localization of NLRP3. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome led to a redistribution from the cytosol to the perinuclear space, a process considered as a hallmark of NLRP3 activation (Zhou et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2013; Moriyama et al., 2016) . Although cells expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutants 3a-CS or V25F uniformly expressed NLRP3 throughout the cytoplasm, it was redistributed to the perinuclear region in SARS-CoV 3a-or E-expressing cells (Figure 4) . Together, these data provide evidence that the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for triggering the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Both K + Efflux and ROS Production Are Involved in the IL-1β Release Induced by the SARS-CoV 3a Protein
Finally, we investigated the mechanism by which SARS-CoV 3a triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A previous study showed that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) . In addition, K + efflux is a well-known activator of the NLRP3 inflammasome (Mariathasan et al., 2006; Petrilli et al., 2007) . These observations prompted us to examine whether K + efflux is required for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. To this end, BMMs in K + -rich medium were infected with influenza A virus or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins. In agreement with a previous result (Ichinohe et al., 2010) , we found that IL-1β secretion caused by influenza virus was completely blocked when the extracellular K + concentration was increased to 130 mM ( Figure 5A) . The inhibitory effect of the K + -rich medium was also observed when cells were stimulated with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins ( Figure 5B ). Since mitochondrial ROS are important for NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Nakahira et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011) , we next stimulated BMMs with extracellular ATP or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins in the presence or absence of the antioxidant, Mito-TEMPO, a scavenger that is specific for mitochondrial ROS Trnka et al., 2009) . As reported previously (Nakahira et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012) , treatment of BMMs with Mito-TEMPO completely blocked IL-1β secretion in response to ATP ( Figure 6A) . Similarly, IL-1β release induced by the SARS-CoV E and 3a proteins was significantly inhibited by Mito-TEMPO ( Figure 6B) . These observations indicate that the SARS-CoV 3a protein disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations and causes mitochondrial damages, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
In summary, we found that the ion channel activity of SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In addition, both K + efflux and mitochondrial ROS production are required for SARS-CoV 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion.
Thus far, several models have been proposed to explain NLRP3 inflammasome activation by RNA viruses. First, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Second, viroporins encoded by RNA viruses activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In the case of influenza virus, the proton-selective M2 ion channel in the acidic trans-Golgi network activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010) . Interestingly, an M2 mutant in which histidine was substituted with glycine at position 37 (H37G), causing loss of proton selectivity, enables transport of other cations (i.e., Na + and K + ), thereby leading to enhanced secretion of IL-1β from LPS-primed BMMs and dendritic cells when compared with the wild-type M2 protein.
In addition, the 2B proteins of EMCV, poliovirus, enterovirus 71 (EV71), and human rhinovirus (a member of the Picornaviridae family) triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inducing Ca 2+ flux from the ER and Golgi compartments (Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013) . Furthermore, hepatitis C virus stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β production though its p7 viroporin (Negash et al., 2013; Farag et al., 2017) . Third, a recent study has demonstrated that the 3D protein of EV71 directly interacts with NLRP3 to facilitate the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasome complex (Wang et al., 2017) .
In the case of SARS-CoV, the viroporin E forms forms Ca 2+permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In addition, another viroporin 3a was found to induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Yue et al., 2018) . Although alanine substitution at Cys-133, which is required for dimer or tetramer formation (Lu et al., 2006) , still allows activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by interacting with caspase-1 (Yue et al., 2018) , the ion channel activity-loss mutant 3a-CS (Cys-to-Ser substitution at positions Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133) (Chan et al., 2009 ) completely abrogated IL-1β secretion from LPS-primed BMMs, suggesting that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV has the ability to induce the NLRP3 inflammasome activation by multiple mechanisms. Previous studies show that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV is localized to the plasma membrane (Minakshi and Padhan, 2014) and acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) , thereby (presumably) stimulating the K + efflux at the plasma membrane. Indeed, we found that IL-1β secretion caused by the 3a protein was significantly inhibited when the extracellular K + concentration increased to 130 mM. Although it remains unclear whether another viroporin 8a of SARS-CoV (Castano-Rodriguez et al., 2018) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, these data highlights the importance of viroporins in SARS-CoV-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A better understanding of the mechanism that governs the NLRP3 inflammasome will facilitate the development of more effective interventions for the treatment of infectious diseases and increase our understanding of viral pathogenesis. | What was the fatality rate of the SARS coronavirus outbreak between November 2002 and July 2003? | {
"answer_start": [
2593
],
"text": [
"9.6%"
]
} | false |
290 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viroporin 3a Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361828/
SHA: f02d0c1e8b0109648e578662dc250abe349a033c
Authors: Chen, I-Yin; Moriyama, Miyu; Chang, Ming-Fu; Ichinohe, Takeshi
Date: 2019-01-29
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00050
License: cc-by
Abstract: Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-18. We previously showed that influenza virus M2 or encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 2B proteins stimulate IL-1β secretion following activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, the mechanism by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we provide direct evidence that SARS-CoV 3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages. SARS-CoV 3a was sufficient to cause the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The ion channel activity of the 3a protein was essential for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. While cells uninfected or infected with a lentivirus expressing a 3a protein defective in ion channel activity expressed NLRP3 uniformly throughout the cytoplasm, NLRP3 was redistributed to the perinuclear space in cells infected with a lentivirus expressing the 3a protein. K(+) efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species were important for SARS-CoV 3a-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These results highlight the importance of viroporins, transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins, in virus-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation.
Text: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a member of the genus Betacoronavirus within the family Coronaviridae, is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 30 kb in length. The 5 two-thirds of the genome encodes large polyprotein precursors, open reading frame (ORF) 1 and ORF1b, which are proteolytically cleaved to generate 16 non-structural proteins (Tan et al., 2005) . The 3 one-third of the genome encodes four structural proteins, spike (S), envelope (E), matrix (M) and nucleocapsid (N), and non-structural proteins, along with a set of accessory proteins (3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, and 9b) (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005; Tan et al., 2005) . SARS-CoV is the etiological agent of SARS (Drosten et al., 2003; Fouchier et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003; Kuiken et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003) . At least 8,098 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection, with a fatality rate of 9.6%, were reported to the World Health Organization from November 2002 to July 2003. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, were detected in autopsy tissues from SARS patients (He et al., 2006) . Although dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in lung injury and the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood.
The innate immune systems utilizes pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Medzhitov, 2001; Kawai and Akira, 2010) . Recognition of virus infection plays an important role in limiting virus replication at the early stages of infection. Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) is activated by a wide variety of stimuli, including virus infection (Bauernfeind et al., 2011) . Four models describing activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome have been proposed thus far (Hornung and Latz, 2010; Schroder et al., 2010; Tschopp and Schroder, 2010) . First, the disturbances in intracellular ionic concentrations, including K + efflux and Ca 2+ influx, play an important role (Fernandes-Alnemri et al., 2007; Petrilli et al., 2007; Arlehamn et al., 2010; Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Murakami et al., 2012; Munoz-Planillo et al., 2013) . Second, cathepsin B and L, which are specific lysosomal cysteine proteases, are though to play a role after phagocytosis of cholesterol crystals (Duewell et al., 2010) , fibrillar peptide amyloid-beta , silica crystals, and aluminum salts . Third is the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or mitochondrial DNA from damaged mitochondria (Zhou et al., , 2011 Nakahira et al., 2011; Shimada et al., 2012) . Finally, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Upon activation, the NLRP3 is recruited to the mitochondria via association with mitochondrial antiviral signaling (MAVS) or mitofusin 2 expressed on the outer mitochondrial membrane Subramanian et al., 2013) ; these molecules then recruit the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC) and pro-caspase-1 to form the NLRP3 inflammasome. This event activates the downstream molecule, caspase-1, which catalyzes the proteolytic processing of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms and stimulates their secretion (Kayagaki et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015) .
It is increasingly evident that NLRP3 detects RNA viruses by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) , transmembrane pore-forming proteins, encoded by certain RNA viruses; these proteins alter membrane permeability to ions by forming membrane channels (Tan et al., 2005; Chen and Ichinohe, 2015) . A recent study shows that the SARS-CoV E protein, which comprise only 76 amino acids, forms Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . Although the E and 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, which comprise 274 amino acids and contain three transmembrane domains (Zeng et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006) , are thought to act as Na + /K + and K + channels, respectively (Wilson et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2007; Parthasarathy et al., 2008; Pervushin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011) , the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we examined the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Six-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Committees of the Institute of Medical Science (The University of Tokyo).
Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) were prepared as described previously (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . In brief, bone marrow was obtained from the tibia and femur by flushing with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Nacalai Tesque). Bone marrow cells were cultured for 5 days in DMEM supplemented with 30% L929 cell supernatant containing macrophage colony-stimulating factor, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and L-glutamine (2 mM) at 37 • C/5% CO 2 . HEK293FT cells (a human embryonic kidney cell line) and HeLa cells (a human epithelial carcinoma cell line) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque). MDCK cells (Madin-Darby canine kidney cells) and HT-1080 cells (a human fibrosarcoma cell line) were grown in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM; Nacalai Tesque) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque).
Influenza A virus strain A/PR8 (H1N1) was grown at 35 • C for 2 days in the allantoic cavities of 10-day-old fertile chicken eggs (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . The viral titer was quantified in a standard plaque assay using MDCK cells (Pang et al., 2013) .
Plasmids cDNAs encoding the E and M proteins of SARS-CoV Frankfurt 1 strain (Matsuyama et al., 2005) were obtained by reverse transcription and PCR of total RNA extracted from SARS-CoVinfected Vero cells, followed by PCR amplification using specific primers. pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His was provided by Ming-Fu Chang (National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan). To generate the plasmids pLenti6-E-V5His, pLenti6-3a-V5His, and pLenti-M-V5His, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets and then ligated into pLenti6-TOPO vectors (Invitrogen). To generate plasmids pCA7-flag-E, pCA7-flag-3a, and pCA7flag-M, pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-3a, and pCA7-HA-M, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets, digested with EcoR I and Not I, and subcloned into the EcoR I-Not I sites of the pCA7-flag-ASC plasmid or pCA7-HA-M2 plasmid, respectively (Ito et al., 2012) . To construct plasmids expressing the E mutant V25F, the mutated E fragments were amplified by inverse PCR with wildtype E-containing plasmids and specific primer sets. The PCR products were cleaved by Dpn I, ligated in a ligase-and T4 kinase-containing reaction and then transformed into DH5α competent cells (TOYOBO). To construct plasmids expressing the 3a mutant 3a-CS, fragments were amplified from wildtype 3a-containing plasmids using 3a-specific primer sets and transformed as described above.
HEK293FT cells were seeded in 24-well cluster plates and transfected with 1 µg pLenti6-E/3a/M-V5His, pLenti-GFP (green fluorescent protein), or pLenti-M2 using polyethylenimine (PEI) Max. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were lysed with RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 1% NP-40, 0.05% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM EDTA). And the lysates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) followed by electroblotting onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. The membranes were incubated over night with mouse anti-V5-tag (R960-25, Invitrogen), mouse anti-influenza A virus M2 (14C2, Abcam), mouse anti-GFP (GF200, Nacalai Tesque), or rabbit antitubulin (DM1A, Santa Cruz) antibodies, followed by horseradish peroxide-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Immuno Research Laboratories) or anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen). After washing 3 times with washing buffer (0.05% Tween-20/PBS), the membranes were exposed using Chemi-Lumi One Super (Nacalai Tesque), and the chemiluminescent signals were captured by an ImageQuant LAS-4000 mini apparatus (GE Healthcare).
To generate lentiviruses expressing V5-tagged SARS-CoV E, 3a, and M proteins, the full-length cDNA encoding each viral protein was cloned into the pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) using the following primers: SARS-CoV E forward, 5 -caccatgtactcattcgtttcgga-3 , and reverse, 5 -gaccagaagatcaggaactc-3 ; SARS-CoV 3a forward, 5caccatggatttgtttatgagatt-3 , and reverse, 5 -caaaggcacgctagtagtcg-3 ; SARS-CoV M forward, 5 -caccatggcagacaacggtactat-3 , and reverse, 5 -ctgtactagcaaagcaatat-3 . Sub-confluent monolayers of HEK293FT cells seeded in a collagen-coated dish (10 cm in diameter) were transfected with 3 µg of pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector expressing each viral protein or EGFP together with ViraPower Packaging Mix (Invitrogen) using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The supernatants containing lentiviruses were harvested and filtered through a 0.45 µm filter (Millipore) at 72-96 h post-transfection (Ito et al., 2012) . The lentiviral titer was then quantified using HT-1080 cells as described previously .
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were plated at a density of 8 × 10 5 in 24-well plate and infected with A/PR8 influenza virus or lentivirus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 or 0.2 for 1 h, respectively. Then, BMMs were stimulated with 1 µg/ml of LPS and cultured for additional 23 h in complete media. Supernatants were collected at 24 h post-infection and centrifuged to remove cell debris. The amount of IL-1β in the supernatants was measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using paired antibodies (eBioscience) (Ichinohe et al., 2010 .
To clarify the cellular localization of the wild-type and mutant 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-flag-3a or pCD7-flag-3a-CS together with 0.5 µg of ER-mCherry or DsRed-Golgi (Ito et al., 2012) . At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing with PBS and blocking with 4% BSA/PBS, the cells were incubated with a mouse anti-flag antibody (M2, Sigma) followed by incubation with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies).
To observe the cellular distribution of NLRP3 in the E-or 3a-expressing cells, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-EV25F, pCA7-HA-3a, pCA7-HA-3a-CS, or pCA7 control vector together with 0.5 µg of pCA7-NLRP3. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed and permeabilized with 4% paraformaldehyde and 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing and blocking, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti-HA (561, MBL) and mouse anti-NLRP3 (Cryo-2; AdipoGen) antibodies, followed by Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) and Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies). Fluorescent signals were observed by confocal microscopy (A1R + , Nikon).
Statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed Student's t-test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
We previously demonstrated that the influenza virus M2 protein (a proton-selective ion channel), its H37G mutant (which has lost its proton selectivity and enables the transport of other cations such as Na + and K + ), and the EMCV 2B protein (a Ca 2+ channel) stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV E protein acts as a Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels that activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto- Torres et al., 2015) . The fact that 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as viroporin prompted us to examine whether it also triggers inflammasome activation. Thus, we first generated lentivirus plasmids expressing V5-tagged proteins and confirmed their expression in HEK293FT cells by immunoblot analysis (Figures 1A-C) . We next transduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed BMMs with the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, 3a, M, influenza virus M2, or EMCV 2B proteins. Consistent with previous reports (Ichinohe et al., Figure 1D) . Similarly, the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins stimulated IL-1β release from LPS-primed BMMs ( Figure 1D) . Furthermore, IL-1β secretion from LPSprimed BMMs co-infected with E-and 3a-expressing lentiviruses was significantly higher than that from SARS-CoV E-expressing lentivirus-infected cells ( Figure 1E) . These data indicated that the expression of SARS-CoV viroporin 3a is sufficient to stimulate IL-1β secretion by LPS-primed BMMs.
Previous studies demonstrated that the N-terminal 40 amino acids of the SARS-CoV E protein are important for ion channel formation, and that mutations N15A and V25F [located in the transmembrane domain (from amino acid residues 7-38)] prevent ion conductivity (Wilson et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2007; Verdia-Baguena et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV 3a protein contains a cysteine-rich domain (amino acid residues 127-133) that is involved in the formation of a homodimer to generate the ion channel (Lu et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009) . Thus, mutation of the cysteine-rich domain blocks the ion conductivity by the 3a protein (Chan et al., 2009) . To this end, we substituted amino acids Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133 within the cysteine-rich domain of the SARS-CoV 3a protein with serine to generate a lentivirus expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutant, 3a-CS (Chan et al., 2009; Figure 2A) . To test whether the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is required to stimulate secretion of IL-1β, we transduced LPSprimed BMMs with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, V25F, 3a, 3a-CS, or M proteins. Consistent with a previous report (Nieto -Torres et al., 2015) , we found that the V25F mutant lentivirus failed to stimulate IL-1β release from BMMs ( Figure 2B) . Notably, the 3a-CS mutant completely abrogated IL-1β secretion (Figure 2B) , suggesting that the ion channel activity of the 3a protein is required for SARS-CoV 3a-induced IL-1β secretion.
FIGURE 4 | NLRP3 inflammasome activation by SARS-CoV 3a. HeLa cells were transfected with the expression plasmid encoding NLRP3 and that encoding HA-tagged SARS-CoV 3a, 3a-CS, E, or V25F, and by with a confocal microscope. Scale bars, 10 µm. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Next, we determined the subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV 3a protein using confocal microscopy. When the SARS-CoV Cell-free supernatants were collected at 24 h (lentiviruses) or 6 h (ATP) post-infection or stimulation, and analyzed for IL-1β by ELISA. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments, and indicate the mean ± SD; * * P < 0.01 and * * * P < 0.001.
3a protein was expressed in HeLa cells, we observed two main distribution patterns. Consistent with previous reports (Yu et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2005) , the 3a protein localized to the Golgi apparatus ( Figure 3A ). In addition, the 3a proteins concentrated in spot structures, which mainly localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (Figure 3B ). By contrast, the 3a-CS mutant was concentrated in the Golgi apparatus rather than in the ER and did not form spot structures (Figures 3A,B) . We next examined the intracellular localization of NLRP3. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome led to a redistribution from the cytosol to the perinuclear space, a process considered as a hallmark of NLRP3 activation (Zhou et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2013; Moriyama et al., 2016) . Although cells expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutants 3a-CS or V25F uniformly expressed NLRP3 throughout the cytoplasm, it was redistributed to the perinuclear region in SARS-CoV 3a-or E-expressing cells (Figure 4) . Together, these data provide evidence that the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for triggering the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Both K + Efflux and ROS Production Are Involved in the IL-1β Release Induced by the SARS-CoV 3a Protein
Finally, we investigated the mechanism by which SARS-CoV 3a triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A previous study showed that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) . In addition, K + efflux is a well-known activator of the NLRP3 inflammasome (Mariathasan et al., 2006; Petrilli et al., 2007) . These observations prompted us to examine whether K + efflux is required for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. To this end, BMMs in K + -rich medium were infected with influenza A virus or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins. In agreement with a previous result (Ichinohe et al., 2010) , we found that IL-1β secretion caused by influenza virus was completely blocked when the extracellular K + concentration was increased to 130 mM ( Figure 5A) . The inhibitory effect of the K + -rich medium was also observed when cells were stimulated with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins ( Figure 5B ). Since mitochondrial ROS are important for NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Nakahira et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011) , we next stimulated BMMs with extracellular ATP or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins in the presence or absence of the antioxidant, Mito-TEMPO, a scavenger that is specific for mitochondrial ROS Trnka et al., 2009) . As reported previously (Nakahira et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012) , treatment of BMMs with Mito-TEMPO completely blocked IL-1β secretion in response to ATP ( Figure 6A) . Similarly, IL-1β release induced by the SARS-CoV E and 3a proteins was significantly inhibited by Mito-TEMPO ( Figure 6B) . These observations indicate that the SARS-CoV 3a protein disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations and causes mitochondrial damages, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
In summary, we found that the ion channel activity of SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In addition, both K + efflux and mitochondrial ROS production are required for SARS-CoV 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion.
Thus far, several models have been proposed to explain NLRP3 inflammasome activation by RNA viruses. First, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Second, viroporins encoded by RNA viruses activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In the case of influenza virus, the proton-selective M2 ion channel in the acidic trans-Golgi network activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010) . Interestingly, an M2 mutant in which histidine was substituted with glycine at position 37 (H37G), causing loss of proton selectivity, enables transport of other cations (i.e., Na + and K + ), thereby leading to enhanced secretion of IL-1β from LPS-primed BMMs and dendritic cells when compared with the wild-type M2 protein.
In addition, the 2B proteins of EMCV, poliovirus, enterovirus 71 (EV71), and human rhinovirus (a member of the Picornaviridae family) triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inducing Ca 2+ flux from the ER and Golgi compartments (Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013) . Furthermore, hepatitis C virus stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β production though its p7 viroporin (Negash et al., 2013; Farag et al., 2017) . Third, a recent study has demonstrated that the 3D protein of EV71 directly interacts with NLRP3 to facilitate the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasome complex (Wang et al., 2017) .
In the case of SARS-CoV, the viroporin E forms forms Ca 2+permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In addition, another viroporin 3a was found to induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Yue et al., 2018) . Although alanine substitution at Cys-133, which is required for dimer or tetramer formation (Lu et al., 2006) , still allows activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by interacting with caspase-1 (Yue et al., 2018) , the ion channel activity-loss mutant 3a-CS (Cys-to-Ser substitution at positions Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133) (Chan et al., 2009 ) completely abrogated IL-1β secretion from LPS-primed BMMs, suggesting that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV has the ability to induce the NLRP3 inflammasome activation by multiple mechanisms. Previous studies show that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV is localized to the plasma membrane (Minakshi and Padhan, 2014) and acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) , thereby (presumably) stimulating the K + efflux at the plasma membrane. Indeed, we found that IL-1β secretion caused by the 3a protein was significantly inhibited when the extracellular K + concentration increased to 130 mM. Although it remains unclear whether another viroporin 8a of SARS-CoV (Castano-Rodriguez et al., 2018) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, these data highlights the importance of viroporins in SARS-CoV-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A better understanding of the mechanism that governs the NLRP3 inflammasome will facilitate the development of more effective interventions for the treatment of infectious diseases and increase our understanding of viral pathogenesis. | What are examples of proinflammatory cytokines? | {
"answer_start": [
2731
],
"text": [
"tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6"
]
} | false |
292 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viroporin 3a Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361828/
SHA: f02d0c1e8b0109648e578662dc250abe349a033c
Authors: Chen, I-Yin; Moriyama, Miyu; Chang, Ming-Fu; Ichinohe, Takeshi
Date: 2019-01-29
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00050
License: cc-by
Abstract: Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-18. We previously showed that influenza virus M2 or encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 2B proteins stimulate IL-1β secretion following activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, the mechanism by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we provide direct evidence that SARS-CoV 3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages. SARS-CoV 3a was sufficient to cause the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The ion channel activity of the 3a protein was essential for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. While cells uninfected or infected with a lentivirus expressing a 3a protein defective in ion channel activity expressed NLRP3 uniformly throughout the cytoplasm, NLRP3 was redistributed to the perinuclear space in cells infected with a lentivirus expressing the 3a protein. K(+) efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species were important for SARS-CoV 3a-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These results highlight the importance of viroporins, transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins, in virus-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation.
Text: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a member of the genus Betacoronavirus within the family Coronaviridae, is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 30 kb in length. The 5 two-thirds of the genome encodes large polyprotein precursors, open reading frame (ORF) 1 and ORF1b, which are proteolytically cleaved to generate 16 non-structural proteins (Tan et al., 2005) . The 3 one-third of the genome encodes four structural proteins, spike (S), envelope (E), matrix (M) and nucleocapsid (N), and non-structural proteins, along with a set of accessory proteins (3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, and 9b) (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005; Tan et al., 2005) . SARS-CoV is the etiological agent of SARS (Drosten et al., 2003; Fouchier et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003; Kuiken et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003) . At least 8,098 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection, with a fatality rate of 9.6%, were reported to the World Health Organization from November 2002 to July 2003. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, were detected in autopsy tissues from SARS patients (He et al., 2006) . Although dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in lung injury and the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood.
The innate immune systems utilizes pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Medzhitov, 2001; Kawai and Akira, 2010) . Recognition of virus infection plays an important role in limiting virus replication at the early stages of infection. Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) is activated by a wide variety of stimuli, including virus infection (Bauernfeind et al., 2011) . Four models describing activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome have been proposed thus far (Hornung and Latz, 2010; Schroder et al., 2010; Tschopp and Schroder, 2010) . First, the disturbances in intracellular ionic concentrations, including K + efflux and Ca 2+ influx, play an important role (Fernandes-Alnemri et al., 2007; Petrilli et al., 2007; Arlehamn et al., 2010; Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Murakami et al., 2012; Munoz-Planillo et al., 2013) . Second, cathepsin B and L, which are specific lysosomal cysteine proteases, are though to play a role after phagocytosis of cholesterol crystals (Duewell et al., 2010) , fibrillar peptide amyloid-beta , silica crystals, and aluminum salts . Third is the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or mitochondrial DNA from damaged mitochondria (Zhou et al., , 2011 Nakahira et al., 2011; Shimada et al., 2012) . Finally, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Upon activation, the NLRP3 is recruited to the mitochondria via association with mitochondrial antiviral signaling (MAVS) or mitofusin 2 expressed on the outer mitochondrial membrane Subramanian et al., 2013) ; these molecules then recruit the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC) and pro-caspase-1 to form the NLRP3 inflammasome. This event activates the downstream molecule, caspase-1, which catalyzes the proteolytic processing of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms and stimulates their secretion (Kayagaki et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015) .
It is increasingly evident that NLRP3 detects RNA viruses by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) , transmembrane pore-forming proteins, encoded by certain RNA viruses; these proteins alter membrane permeability to ions by forming membrane channels (Tan et al., 2005; Chen and Ichinohe, 2015) . A recent study shows that the SARS-CoV E protein, which comprise only 76 amino acids, forms Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . Although the E and 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, which comprise 274 amino acids and contain three transmembrane domains (Zeng et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006) , are thought to act as Na + /K + and K + channels, respectively (Wilson et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2007; Parthasarathy et al., 2008; Pervushin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011) , the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we examined the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Six-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Committees of the Institute of Medical Science (The University of Tokyo).
Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) were prepared as described previously (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . In brief, bone marrow was obtained from the tibia and femur by flushing with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Nacalai Tesque). Bone marrow cells were cultured for 5 days in DMEM supplemented with 30% L929 cell supernatant containing macrophage colony-stimulating factor, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and L-glutamine (2 mM) at 37 • C/5% CO 2 . HEK293FT cells (a human embryonic kidney cell line) and HeLa cells (a human epithelial carcinoma cell line) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque). MDCK cells (Madin-Darby canine kidney cells) and HT-1080 cells (a human fibrosarcoma cell line) were grown in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM; Nacalai Tesque) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque).
Influenza A virus strain A/PR8 (H1N1) was grown at 35 • C for 2 days in the allantoic cavities of 10-day-old fertile chicken eggs (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . The viral titer was quantified in a standard plaque assay using MDCK cells (Pang et al., 2013) .
Plasmids cDNAs encoding the E and M proteins of SARS-CoV Frankfurt 1 strain (Matsuyama et al., 2005) were obtained by reverse transcription and PCR of total RNA extracted from SARS-CoVinfected Vero cells, followed by PCR amplification using specific primers. pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His was provided by Ming-Fu Chang (National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan). To generate the plasmids pLenti6-E-V5His, pLenti6-3a-V5His, and pLenti-M-V5His, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets and then ligated into pLenti6-TOPO vectors (Invitrogen). To generate plasmids pCA7-flag-E, pCA7-flag-3a, and pCA7flag-M, pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-3a, and pCA7-HA-M, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets, digested with EcoR I and Not I, and subcloned into the EcoR I-Not I sites of the pCA7-flag-ASC plasmid or pCA7-HA-M2 plasmid, respectively (Ito et al., 2012) . To construct plasmids expressing the E mutant V25F, the mutated E fragments were amplified by inverse PCR with wildtype E-containing plasmids and specific primer sets. The PCR products were cleaved by Dpn I, ligated in a ligase-and T4 kinase-containing reaction and then transformed into DH5α competent cells (TOYOBO). To construct plasmids expressing the 3a mutant 3a-CS, fragments were amplified from wildtype 3a-containing plasmids using 3a-specific primer sets and transformed as described above.
HEK293FT cells were seeded in 24-well cluster plates and transfected with 1 µg pLenti6-E/3a/M-V5His, pLenti-GFP (green fluorescent protein), or pLenti-M2 using polyethylenimine (PEI) Max. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were lysed with RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 1% NP-40, 0.05% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM EDTA). And the lysates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) followed by electroblotting onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. The membranes were incubated over night with mouse anti-V5-tag (R960-25, Invitrogen), mouse anti-influenza A virus M2 (14C2, Abcam), mouse anti-GFP (GF200, Nacalai Tesque), or rabbit antitubulin (DM1A, Santa Cruz) antibodies, followed by horseradish peroxide-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Immuno Research Laboratories) or anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen). After washing 3 times with washing buffer (0.05% Tween-20/PBS), the membranes were exposed using Chemi-Lumi One Super (Nacalai Tesque), and the chemiluminescent signals were captured by an ImageQuant LAS-4000 mini apparatus (GE Healthcare).
To generate lentiviruses expressing V5-tagged SARS-CoV E, 3a, and M proteins, the full-length cDNA encoding each viral protein was cloned into the pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) using the following primers: SARS-CoV E forward, 5 -caccatgtactcattcgtttcgga-3 , and reverse, 5 -gaccagaagatcaggaactc-3 ; SARS-CoV 3a forward, 5caccatggatttgtttatgagatt-3 , and reverse, 5 -caaaggcacgctagtagtcg-3 ; SARS-CoV M forward, 5 -caccatggcagacaacggtactat-3 , and reverse, 5 -ctgtactagcaaagcaatat-3 . Sub-confluent monolayers of HEK293FT cells seeded in a collagen-coated dish (10 cm in diameter) were transfected with 3 µg of pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector expressing each viral protein or EGFP together with ViraPower Packaging Mix (Invitrogen) using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The supernatants containing lentiviruses were harvested and filtered through a 0.45 µm filter (Millipore) at 72-96 h post-transfection (Ito et al., 2012) . The lentiviral titer was then quantified using HT-1080 cells as described previously .
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were plated at a density of 8 × 10 5 in 24-well plate and infected with A/PR8 influenza virus or lentivirus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 or 0.2 for 1 h, respectively. Then, BMMs were stimulated with 1 µg/ml of LPS and cultured for additional 23 h in complete media. Supernatants were collected at 24 h post-infection and centrifuged to remove cell debris. The amount of IL-1β in the supernatants was measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using paired antibodies (eBioscience) (Ichinohe et al., 2010 .
To clarify the cellular localization of the wild-type and mutant 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-flag-3a or pCD7-flag-3a-CS together with 0.5 µg of ER-mCherry or DsRed-Golgi (Ito et al., 2012) . At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing with PBS and blocking with 4% BSA/PBS, the cells were incubated with a mouse anti-flag antibody (M2, Sigma) followed by incubation with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies).
To observe the cellular distribution of NLRP3 in the E-or 3a-expressing cells, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-EV25F, pCA7-HA-3a, pCA7-HA-3a-CS, or pCA7 control vector together with 0.5 µg of pCA7-NLRP3. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed and permeabilized with 4% paraformaldehyde and 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing and blocking, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti-HA (561, MBL) and mouse anti-NLRP3 (Cryo-2; AdipoGen) antibodies, followed by Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) and Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies). Fluorescent signals were observed by confocal microscopy (A1R + , Nikon).
Statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed Student's t-test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
We previously demonstrated that the influenza virus M2 protein (a proton-selective ion channel), its H37G mutant (which has lost its proton selectivity and enables the transport of other cations such as Na + and K + ), and the EMCV 2B protein (a Ca 2+ channel) stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV E protein acts as a Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels that activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto- Torres et al., 2015) . The fact that 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as viroporin prompted us to examine whether it also triggers inflammasome activation. Thus, we first generated lentivirus plasmids expressing V5-tagged proteins and confirmed their expression in HEK293FT cells by immunoblot analysis (Figures 1A-C) . We next transduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed BMMs with the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, 3a, M, influenza virus M2, or EMCV 2B proteins. Consistent with previous reports (Ichinohe et al., Figure 1D) . Similarly, the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins stimulated IL-1β release from LPS-primed BMMs ( Figure 1D) . Furthermore, IL-1β secretion from LPSprimed BMMs co-infected with E-and 3a-expressing lentiviruses was significantly higher than that from SARS-CoV E-expressing lentivirus-infected cells ( Figure 1E) . These data indicated that the expression of SARS-CoV viroporin 3a is sufficient to stimulate IL-1β secretion by LPS-primed BMMs.
Previous studies demonstrated that the N-terminal 40 amino acids of the SARS-CoV E protein are important for ion channel formation, and that mutations N15A and V25F [located in the transmembrane domain (from amino acid residues 7-38)] prevent ion conductivity (Wilson et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2007; Verdia-Baguena et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV 3a protein contains a cysteine-rich domain (amino acid residues 127-133) that is involved in the formation of a homodimer to generate the ion channel (Lu et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009) . Thus, mutation of the cysteine-rich domain blocks the ion conductivity by the 3a protein (Chan et al., 2009) . To this end, we substituted amino acids Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133 within the cysteine-rich domain of the SARS-CoV 3a protein with serine to generate a lentivirus expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutant, 3a-CS (Chan et al., 2009; Figure 2A) . To test whether the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is required to stimulate secretion of IL-1β, we transduced LPSprimed BMMs with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, V25F, 3a, 3a-CS, or M proteins. Consistent with a previous report (Nieto -Torres et al., 2015) , we found that the V25F mutant lentivirus failed to stimulate IL-1β release from BMMs ( Figure 2B) . Notably, the 3a-CS mutant completely abrogated IL-1β secretion (Figure 2B) , suggesting that the ion channel activity of the 3a protein is required for SARS-CoV 3a-induced IL-1β secretion.
FIGURE 4 | NLRP3 inflammasome activation by SARS-CoV 3a. HeLa cells were transfected with the expression plasmid encoding NLRP3 and that encoding HA-tagged SARS-CoV 3a, 3a-CS, E, or V25F, and by with a confocal microscope. Scale bars, 10 µm. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Next, we determined the subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV 3a protein using confocal microscopy. When the SARS-CoV Cell-free supernatants were collected at 24 h (lentiviruses) or 6 h (ATP) post-infection or stimulation, and analyzed for IL-1β by ELISA. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments, and indicate the mean ± SD; * * P < 0.01 and * * * P < 0.001.
3a protein was expressed in HeLa cells, we observed two main distribution patterns. Consistent with previous reports (Yu et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2005) , the 3a protein localized to the Golgi apparatus ( Figure 3A ). In addition, the 3a proteins concentrated in spot structures, which mainly localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (Figure 3B ). By contrast, the 3a-CS mutant was concentrated in the Golgi apparatus rather than in the ER and did not form spot structures (Figures 3A,B) . We next examined the intracellular localization of NLRP3. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome led to a redistribution from the cytosol to the perinuclear space, a process considered as a hallmark of NLRP3 activation (Zhou et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2013; Moriyama et al., 2016) . Although cells expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutants 3a-CS or V25F uniformly expressed NLRP3 throughout the cytoplasm, it was redistributed to the perinuclear region in SARS-CoV 3a-or E-expressing cells (Figure 4) . Together, these data provide evidence that the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for triggering the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Both K + Efflux and ROS Production Are Involved in the IL-1β Release Induced by the SARS-CoV 3a Protein
Finally, we investigated the mechanism by which SARS-CoV 3a triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A previous study showed that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) . In addition, K + efflux is a well-known activator of the NLRP3 inflammasome (Mariathasan et al., 2006; Petrilli et al., 2007) . These observations prompted us to examine whether K + efflux is required for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. To this end, BMMs in K + -rich medium were infected with influenza A virus or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins. In agreement with a previous result (Ichinohe et al., 2010) , we found that IL-1β secretion caused by influenza virus was completely blocked when the extracellular K + concentration was increased to 130 mM ( Figure 5A) . The inhibitory effect of the K + -rich medium was also observed when cells were stimulated with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins ( Figure 5B ). Since mitochondrial ROS are important for NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Nakahira et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011) , we next stimulated BMMs with extracellular ATP or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins in the presence or absence of the antioxidant, Mito-TEMPO, a scavenger that is specific for mitochondrial ROS Trnka et al., 2009) . As reported previously (Nakahira et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012) , treatment of BMMs with Mito-TEMPO completely blocked IL-1β secretion in response to ATP ( Figure 6A) . Similarly, IL-1β release induced by the SARS-CoV E and 3a proteins was significantly inhibited by Mito-TEMPO ( Figure 6B) . These observations indicate that the SARS-CoV 3a protein disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations and causes mitochondrial damages, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
In summary, we found that the ion channel activity of SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In addition, both K + efflux and mitochondrial ROS production are required for SARS-CoV 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion.
Thus far, several models have been proposed to explain NLRP3 inflammasome activation by RNA viruses. First, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Second, viroporins encoded by RNA viruses activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In the case of influenza virus, the proton-selective M2 ion channel in the acidic trans-Golgi network activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010) . Interestingly, an M2 mutant in which histidine was substituted with glycine at position 37 (H37G), causing loss of proton selectivity, enables transport of other cations (i.e., Na + and K + ), thereby leading to enhanced secretion of IL-1β from LPS-primed BMMs and dendritic cells when compared with the wild-type M2 protein.
In addition, the 2B proteins of EMCV, poliovirus, enterovirus 71 (EV71), and human rhinovirus (a member of the Picornaviridae family) triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inducing Ca 2+ flux from the ER and Golgi compartments (Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013) . Furthermore, hepatitis C virus stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β production though its p7 viroporin (Negash et al., 2013; Farag et al., 2017) . Third, a recent study has demonstrated that the 3D protein of EV71 directly interacts with NLRP3 to facilitate the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasome complex (Wang et al., 2017) .
In the case of SARS-CoV, the viroporin E forms forms Ca 2+permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In addition, another viroporin 3a was found to induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Yue et al., 2018) . Although alanine substitution at Cys-133, which is required for dimer or tetramer formation (Lu et al., 2006) , still allows activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by interacting with caspase-1 (Yue et al., 2018) , the ion channel activity-loss mutant 3a-CS (Cys-to-Ser substitution at positions Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133) (Chan et al., 2009 ) completely abrogated IL-1β secretion from LPS-primed BMMs, suggesting that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV has the ability to induce the NLRP3 inflammasome activation by multiple mechanisms. Previous studies show that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV is localized to the plasma membrane (Minakshi and Padhan, 2014) and acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) , thereby (presumably) stimulating the K + efflux at the plasma membrane. Indeed, we found that IL-1β secretion caused by the 3a protein was significantly inhibited when the extracellular K + concentration increased to 130 mM. Although it remains unclear whether another viroporin 8a of SARS-CoV (Castano-Rodriguez et al., 2018) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, these data highlights the importance of viroporins in SARS-CoV-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A better understanding of the mechanism that governs the NLRP3 inflammasome will facilitate the development of more effective interventions for the treatment of infectious diseases and increase our understanding of viral pathogenesis. | How does NLRP3 detect RNA viral infection? | {
"answer_start": [
5244
],
"text": [
"by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins"
]
} | false |
293 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viroporin 3a Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361828/
SHA: f02d0c1e8b0109648e578662dc250abe349a033c
Authors: Chen, I-Yin; Moriyama, Miyu; Chang, Ming-Fu; Ichinohe, Takeshi
Date: 2019-01-29
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00050
License: cc-by
Abstract: Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-18. We previously showed that influenza virus M2 or encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 2B proteins stimulate IL-1β secretion following activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, the mechanism by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we provide direct evidence that SARS-CoV 3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages. SARS-CoV 3a was sufficient to cause the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The ion channel activity of the 3a protein was essential for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. While cells uninfected or infected with a lentivirus expressing a 3a protein defective in ion channel activity expressed NLRP3 uniformly throughout the cytoplasm, NLRP3 was redistributed to the perinuclear space in cells infected with a lentivirus expressing the 3a protein. K(+) efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species were important for SARS-CoV 3a-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These results highlight the importance of viroporins, transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins, in virus-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation.
Text: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a member of the genus Betacoronavirus within the family Coronaviridae, is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 30 kb in length. The 5 two-thirds of the genome encodes large polyprotein precursors, open reading frame (ORF) 1 and ORF1b, which are proteolytically cleaved to generate 16 non-structural proteins (Tan et al., 2005) . The 3 one-third of the genome encodes four structural proteins, spike (S), envelope (E), matrix (M) and nucleocapsid (N), and non-structural proteins, along with a set of accessory proteins (3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, and 9b) (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005; Tan et al., 2005) . SARS-CoV is the etiological agent of SARS (Drosten et al., 2003; Fouchier et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003; Kuiken et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003) . At least 8,098 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection, with a fatality rate of 9.6%, were reported to the World Health Organization from November 2002 to July 2003. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, were detected in autopsy tissues from SARS patients (He et al., 2006) . Although dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in lung injury and the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood.
The innate immune systems utilizes pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Medzhitov, 2001; Kawai and Akira, 2010) . Recognition of virus infection plays an important role in limiting virus replication at the early stages of infection. Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) is activated by a wide variety of stimuli, including virus infection (Bauernfeind et al., 2011) . Four models describing activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome have been proposed thus far (Hornung and Latz, 2010; Schroder et al., 2010; Tschopp and Schroder, 2010) . First, the disturbances in intracellular ionic concentrations, including K + efflux and Ca 2+ influx, play an important role (Fernandes-Alnemri et al., 2007; Petrilli et al., 2007; Arlehamn et al., 2010; Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Murakami et al., 2012; Munoz-Planillo et al., 2013) . Second, cathepsin B and L, which are specific lysosomal cysteine proteases, are though to play a role after phagocytosis of cholesterol crystals (Duewell et al., 2010) , fibrillar peptide amyloid-beta , silica crystals, and aluminum salts . Third is the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or mitochondrial DNA from damaged mitochondria (Zhou et al., , 2011 Nakahira et al., 2011; Shimada et al., 2012) . Finally, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Upon activation, the NLRP3 is recruited to the mitochondria via association with mitochondrial antiviral signaling (MAVS) or mitofusin 2 expressed on the outer mitochondrial membrane Subramanian et al., 2013) ; these molecules then recruit the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC) and pro-caspase-1 to form the NLRP3 inflammasome. This event activates the downstream molecule, caspase-1, which catalyzes the proteolytic processing of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms and stimulates their secretion (Kayagaki et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015) .
It is increasingly evident that NLRP3 detects RNA viruses by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) , transmembrane pore-forming proteins, encoded by certain RNA viruses; these proteins alter membrane permeability to ions by forming membrane channels (Tan et al., 2005; Chen and Ichinohe, 2015) . A recent study shows that the SARS-CoV E protein, which comprise only 76 amino acids, forms Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . Although the E and 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, which comprise 274 amino acids and contain three transmembrane domains (Zeng et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006) , are thought to act as Na + /K + and K + channels, respectively (Wilson et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2007; Parthasarathy et al., 2008; Pervushin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011) , the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we examined the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Six-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Committees of the Institute of Medical Science (The University of Tokyo).
Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) were prepared as described previously (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . In brief, bone marrow was obtained from the tibia and femur by flushing with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Nacalai Tesque). Bone marrow cells were cultured for 5 days in DMEM supplemented with 30% L929 cell supernatant containing macrophage colony-stimulating factor, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and L-glutamine (2 mM) at 37 • C/5% CO 2 . HEK293FT cells (a human embryonic kidney cell line) and HeLa cells (a human epithelial carcinoma cell line) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque). MDCK cells (Madin-Darby canine kidney cells) and HT-1080 cells (a human fibrosarcoma cell line) were grown in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM; Nacalai Tesque) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque).
Influenza A virus strain A/PR8 (H1N1) was grown at 35 • C for 2 days in the allantoic cavities of 10-day-old fertile chicken eggs (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . The viral titer was quantified in a standard plaque assay using MDCK cells (Pang et al., 2013) .
Plasmids cDNAs encoding the E and M proteins of SARS-CoV Frankfurt 1 strain (Matsuyama et al., 2005) were obtained by reverse transcription and PCR of total RNA extracted from SARS-CoVinfected Vero cells, followed by PCR amplification using specific primers. pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His was provided by Ming-Fu Chang (National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan). To generate the plasmids pLenti6-E-V5His, pLenti6-3a-V5His, and pLenti-M-V5His, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets and then ligated into pLenti6-TOPO vectors (Invitrogen). To generate plasmids pCA7-flag-E, pCA7-flag-3a, and pCA7flag-M, pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-3a, and pCA7-HA-M, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets, digested with EcoR I and Not I, and subcloned into the EcoR I-Not I sites of the pCA7-flag-ASC plasmid or pCA7-HA-M2 plasmid, respectively (Ito et al., 2012) . To construct plasmids expressing the E mutant V25F, the mutated E fragments were amplified by inverse PCR with wildtype E-containing plasmids and specific primer sets. The PCR products were cleaved by Dpn I, ligated in a ligase-and T4 kinase-containing reaction and then transformed into DH5α competent cells (TOYOBO). To construct plasmids expressing the 3a mutant 3a-CS, fragments were amplified from wildtype 3a-containing plasmids using 3a-specific primer sets and transformed as described above.
HEK293FT cells were seeded in 24-well cluster plates and transfected with 1 µg pLenti6-E/3a/M-V5His, pLenti-GFP (green fluorescent protein), or pLenti-M2 using polyethylenimine (PEI) Max. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were lysed with RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 1% NP-40, 0.05% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM EDTA). And the lysates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) followed by electroblotting onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. The membranes were incubated over night with mouse anti-V5-tag (R960-25, Invitrogen), mouse anti-influenza A virus M2 (14C2, Abcam), mouse anti-GFP (GF200, Nacalai Tesque), or rabbit antitubulin (DM1A, Santa Cruz) antibodies, followed by horseradish peroxide-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Immuno Research Laboratories) or anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen). After washing 3 times with washing buffer (0.05% Tween-20/PBS), the membranes were exposed using Chemi-Lumi One Super (Nacalai Tesque), and the chemiluminescent signals were captured by an ImageQuant LAS-4000 mini apparatus (GE Healthcare).
To generate lentiviruses expressing V5-tagged SARS-CoV E, 3a, and M proteins, the full-length cDNA encoding each viral protein was cloned into the pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) using the following primers: SARS-CoV E forward, 5 -caccatgtactcattcgtttcgga-3 , and reverse, 5 -gaccagaagatcaggaactc-3 ; SARS-CoV 3a forward, 5caccatggatttgtttatgagatt-3 , and reverse, 5 -caaaggcacgctagtagtcg-3 ; SARS-CoV M forward, 5 -caccatggcagacaacggtactat-3 , and reverse, 5 -ctgtactagcaaagcaatat-3 . Sub-confluent monolayers of HEK293FT cells seeded in a collagen-coated dish (10 cm in diameter) were transfected with 3 µg of pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector expressing each viral protein or EGFP together with ViraPower Packaging Mix (Invitrogen) using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The supernatants containing lentiviruses were harvested and filtered through a 0.45 µm filter (Millipore) at 72-96 h post-transfection (Ito et al., 2012) . The lentiviral titer was then quantified using HT-1080 cells as described previously .
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were plated at a density of 8 × 10 5 in 24-well plate and infected with A/PR8 influenza virus or lentivirus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 or 0.2 for 1 h, respectively. Then, BMMs were stimulated with 1 µg/ml of LPS and cultured for additional 23 h in complete media. Supernatants were collected at 24 h post-infection and centrifuged to remove cell debris. The amount of IL-1β in the supernatants was measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using paired antibodies (eBioscience) (Ichinohe et al., 2010 .
To clarify the cellular localization of the wild-type and mutant 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-flag-3a or pCD7-flag-3a-CS together with 0.5 µg of ER-mCherry or DsRed-Golgi (Ito et al., 2012) . At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing with PBS and blocking with 4% BSA/PBS, the cells were incubated with a mouse anti-flag antibody (M2, Sigma) followed by incubation with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies).
To observe the cellular distribution of NLRP3 in the E-or 3a-expressing cells, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-EV25F, pCA7-HA-3a, pCA7-HA-3a-CS, or pCA7 control vector together with 0.5 µg of pCA7-NLRP3. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed and permeabilized with 4% paraformaldehyde and 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing and blocking, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti-HA (561, MBL) and mouse anti-NLRP3 (Cryo-2; AdipoGen) antibodies, followed by Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) and Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies). Fluorescent signals were observed by confocal microscopy (A1R + , Nikon).
Statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed Student's t-test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
We previously demonstrated that the influenza virus M2 protein (a proton-selective ion channel), its H37G mutant (which has lost its proton selectivity and enables the transport of other cations such as Na + and K + ), and the EMCV 2B protein (a Ca 2+ channel) stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV E protein acts as a Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels that activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto- Torres et al., 2015) . The fact that 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as viroporin prompted us to examine whether it also triggers inflammasome activation. Thus, we first generated lentivirus plasmids expressing V5-tagged proteins and confirmed their expression in HEK293FT cells by immunoblot analysis (Figures 1A-C) . We next transduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed BMMs with the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, 3a, M, influenza virus M2, or EMCV 2B proteins. Consistent with previous reports (Ichinohe et al., Figure 1D) . Similarly, the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins stimulated IL-1β release from LPS-primed BMMs ( Figure 1D) . Furthermore, IL-1β secretion from LPSprimed BMMs co-infected with E-and 3a-expressing lentiviruses was significantly higher than that from SARS-CoV E-expressing lentivirus-infected cells ( Figure 1E) . These data indicated that the expression of SARS-CoV viroporin 3a is sufficient to stimulate IL-1β secretion by LPS-primed BMMs.
Previous studies demonstrated that the N-terminal 40 amino acids of the SARS-CoV E protein are important for ion channel formation, and that mutations N15A and V25F [located in the transmembrane domain (from amino acid residues 7-38)] prevent ion conductivity (Wilson et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2007; Verdia-Baguena et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV 3a protein contains a cysteine-rich domain (amino acid residues 127-133) that is involved in the formation of a homodimer to generate the ion channel (Lu et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009) . Thus, mutation of the cysteine-rich domain blocks the ion conductivity by the 3a protein (Chan et al., 2009) . To this end, we substituted amino acids Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133 within the cysteine-rich domain of the SARS-CoV 3a protein with serine to generate a lentivirus expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutant, 3a-CS (Chan et al., 2009; Figure 2A) . To test whether the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is required to stimulate secretion of IL-1β, we transduced LPSprimed BMMs with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, V25F, 3a, 3a-CS, or M proteins. Consistent with a previous report (Nieto -Torres et al., 2015) , we found that the V25F mutant lentivirus failed to stimulate IL-1β release from BMMs ( Figure 2B) . Notably, the 3a-CS mutant completely abrogated IL-1β secretion (Figure 2B) , suggesting that the ion channel activity of the 3a protein is required for SARS-CoV 3a-induced IL-1β secretion.
FIGURE 4 | NLRP3 inflammasome activation by SARS-CoV 3a. HeLa cells were transfected with the expression plasmid encoding NLRP3 and that encoding HA-tagged SARS-CoV 3a, 3a-CS, E, or V25F, and by with a confocal microscope. Scale bars, 10 µm. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Next, we determined the subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV 3a protein using confocal microscopy. When the SARS-CoV Cell-free supernatants were collected at 24 h (lentiviruses) or 6 h (ATP) post-infection or stimulation, and analyzed for IL-1β by ELISA. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments, and indicate the mean ± SD; * * P < 0.01 and * * * P < 0.001.
3a protein was expressed in HeLa cells, we observed two main distribution patterns. Consistent with previous reports (Yu et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2005) , the 3a protein localized to the Golgi apparatus ( Figure 3A ). In addition, the 3a proteins concentrated in spot structures, which mainly localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (Figure 3B ). By contrast, the 3a-CS mutant was concentrated in the Golgi apparatus rather than in the ER and did not form spot structures (Figures 3A,B) . We next examined the intracellular localization of NLRP3. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome led to a redistribution from the cytosol to the perinuclear space, a process considered as a hallmark of NLRP3 activation (Zhou et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2013; Moriyama et al., 2016) . Although cells expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutants 3a-CS or V25F uniformly expressed NLRP3 throughout the cytoplasm, it was redistributed to the perinuclear region in SARS-CoV 3a-or E-expressing cells (Figure 4) . Together, these data provide evidence that the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for triggering the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Both K + Efflux and ROS Production Are Involved in the IL-1β Release Induced by the SARS-CoV 3a Protein
Finally, we investigated the mechanism by which SARS-CoV 3a triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A previous study showed that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) . In addition, K + efflux is a well-known activator of the NLRP3 inflammasome (Mariathasan et al., 2006; Petrilli et al., 2007) . These observations prompted us to examine whether K + efflux is required for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. To this end, BMMs in K + -rich medium were infected with influenza A virus or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins. In agreement with a previous result (Ichinohe et al., 2010) , we found that IL-1β secretion caused by influenza virus was completely blocked when the extracellular K + concentration was increased to 130 mM ( Figure 5A) . The inhibitory effect of the K + -rich medium was also observed when cells were stimulated with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins ( Figure 5B ). Since mitochondrial ROS are important for NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Nakahira et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011) , we next stimulated BMMs with extracellular ATP or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins in the presence or absence of the antioxidant, Mito-TEMPO, a scavenger that is specific for mitochondrial ROS Trnka et al., 2009) . As reported previously (Nakahira et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012) , treatment of BMMs with Mito-TEMPO completely blocked IL-1β secretion in response to ATP ( Figure 6A) . Similarly, IL-1β release induced by the SARS-CoV E and 3a proteins was significantly inhibited by Mito-TEMPO ( Figure 6B) . These observations indicate that the SARS-CoV 3a protein disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations and causes mitochondrial damages, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
In summary, we found that the ion channel activity of SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In addition, both K + efflux and mitochondrial ROS production are required for SARS-CoV 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion.
Thus far, several models have been proposed to explain NLRP3 inflammasome activation by RNA viruses. First, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Second, viroporins encoded by RNA viruses activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In the case of influenza virus, the proton-selective M2 ion channel in the acidic trans-Golgi network activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010) . Interestingly, an M2 mutant in which histidine was substituted with glycine at position 37 (H37G), causing loss of proton selectivity, enables transport of other cations (i.e., Na + and K + ), thereby leading to enhanced secretion of IL-1β from LPS-primed BMMs and dendritic cells when compared with the wild-type M2 protein.
In addition, the 2B proteins of EMCV, poliovirus, enterovirus 71 (EV71), and human rhinovirus (a member of the Picornaviridae family) triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inducing Ca 2+ flux from the ER and Golgi compartments (Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013) . Furthermore, hepatitis C virus stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β production though its p7 viroporin (Negash et al., 2013; Farag et al., 2017) . Third, a recent study has demonstrated that the 3D protein of EV71 directly interacts with NLRP3 to facilitate the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasome complex (Wang et al., 2017) .
In the case of SARS-CoV, the viroporin E forms forms Ca 2+permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In addition, another viroporin 3a was found to induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Yue et al., 2018) . Although alanine substitution at Cys-133, which is required for dimer or tetramer formation (Lu et al., 2006) , still allows activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by interacting with caspase-1 (Yue et al., 2018) , the ion channel activity-loss mutant 3a-CS (Cys-to-Ser substitution at positions Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133) (Chan et al., 2009 ) completely abrogated IL-1β secretion from LPS-primed BMMs, suggesting that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV has the ability to induce the NLRP3 inflammasome activation by multiple mechanisms. Previous studies show that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV is localized to the plasma membrane (Minakshi and Padhan, 2014) and acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) , thereby (presumably) stimulating the K + efflux at the plasma membrane. Indeed, we found that IL-1β secretion caused by the 3a protein was significantly inhibited when the extracellular K + concentration increased to 130 mM. Although it remains unclear whether another viroporin 8a of SARS-CoV (Castano-Rodriguez et al., 2018) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, these data highlights the importance of viroporins in SARS-CoV-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A better understanding of the mechanism that governs the NLRP3 inflammasome will facilitate the development of more effective interventions for the treatment of infectious diseases and increase our understanding of viral pathogenesis. | How many amino acids are in the SARS-CoV E protein? | {
"answer_start": [
5672
],
"text": [
"76 amino acids"
]
} | false |
294 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viroporin 3a Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361828/
SHA: f02d0c1e8b0109648e578662dc250abe349a033c
Authors: Chen, I-Yin; Moriyama, Miyu; Chang, Ming-Fu; Ichinohe, Takeshi
Date: 2019-01-29
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00050
License: cc-by
Abstract: Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-18. We previously showed that influenza virus M2 or encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 2B proteins stimulate IL-1β secretion following activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, the mechanism by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we provide direct evidence that SARS-CoV 3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages. SARS-CoV 3a was sufficient to cause the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The ion channel activity of the 3a protein was essential for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. While cells uninfected or infected with a lentivirus expressing a 3a protein defective in ion channel activity expressed NLRP3 uniformly throughout the cytoplasm, NLRP3 was redistributed to the perinuclear space in cells infected with a lentivirus expressing the 3a protein. K(+) efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species were important for SARS-CoV 3a-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These results highlight the importance of viroporins, transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins, in virus-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation.
Text: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a member of the genus Betacoronavirus within the family Coronaviridae, is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 30 kb in length. The 5 two-thirds of the genome encodes large polyprotein precursors, open reading frame (ORF) 1 and ORF1b, which are proteolytically cleaved to generate 16 non-structural proteins (Tan et al., 2005) . The 3 one-third of the genome encodes four structural proteins, spike (S), envelope (E), matrix (M) and nucleocapsid (N), and non-structural proteins, along with a set of accessory proteins (3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, and 9b) (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005; Tan et al., 2005) . SARS-CoV is the etiological agent of SARS (Drosten et al., 2003; Fouchier et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003; Kuiken et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003) . At least 8,098 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection, with a fatality rate of 9.6%, were reported to the World Health Organization from November 2002 to July 2003. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, were detected in autopsy tissues from SARS patients (He et al., 2006) . Although dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in lung injury and the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood.
The innate immune systems utilizes pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Medzhitov, 2001; Kawai and Akira, 2010) . Recognition of virus infection plays an important role in limiting virus replication at the early stages of infection. Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) is activated by a wide variety of stimuli, including virus infection (Bauernfeind et al., 2011) . Four models describing activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome have been proposed thus far (Hornung and Latz, 2010; Schroder et al., 2010; Tschopp and Schroder, 2010) . First, the disturbances in intracellular ionic concentrations, including K + efflux and Ca 2+ influx, play an important role (Fernandes-Alnemri et al., 2007; Petrilli et al., 2007; Arlehamn et al., 2010; Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Murakami et al., 2012; Munoz-Planillo et al., 2013) . Second, cathepsin B and L, which are specific lysosomal cysteine proteases, are though to play a role after phagocytosis of cholesterol crystals (Duewell et al., 2010) , fibrillar peptide amyloid-beta , silica crystals, and aluminum salts . Third is the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or mitochondrial DNA from damaged mitochondria (Zhou et al., , 2011 Nakahira et al., 2011; Shimada et al., 2012) . Finally, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Upon activation, the NLRP3 is recruited to the mitochondria via association with mitochondrial antiviral signaling (MAVS) or mitofusin 2 expressed on the outer mitochondrial membrane Subramanian et al., 2013) ; these molecules then recruit the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC) and pro-caspase-1 to form the NLRP3 inflammasome. This event activates the downstream molecule, caspase-1, which catalyzes the proteolytic processing of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms and stimulates their secretion (Kayagaki et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015) .
It is increasingly evident that NLRP3 detects RNA viruses by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) , transmembrane pore-forming proteins, encoded by certain RNA viruses; these proteins alter membrane permeability to ions by forming membrane channels (Tan et al., 2005; Chen and Ichinohe, 2015) . A recent study shows that the SARS-CoV E protein, which comprise only 76 amino acids, forms Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . Although the E and 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, which comprise 274 amino acids and contain three transmembrane domains (Zeng et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006) , are thought to act as Na + /K + and K + channels, respectively (Wilson et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2007; Parthasarathy et al., 2008; Pervushin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011) , the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we examined the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Six-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Committees of the Institute of Medical Science (The University of Tokyo).
Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) were prepared as described previously (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . In brief, bone marrow was obtained from the tibia and femur by flushing with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Nacalai Tesque). Bone marrow cells were cultured for 5 days in DMEM supplemented with 30% L929 cell supernatant containing macrophage colony-stimulating factor, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and L-glutamine (2 mM) at 37 • C/5% CO 2 . HEK293FT cells (a human embryonic kidney cell line) and HeLa cells (a human epithelial carcinoma cell line) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque). MDCK cells (Madin-Darby canine kidney cells) and HT-1080 cells (a human fibrosarcoma cell line) were grown in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM; Nacalai Tesque) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque).
Influenza A virus strain A/PR8 (H1N1) was grown at 35 • C for 2 days in the allantoic cavities of 10-day-old fertile chicken eggs (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . The viral titer was quantified in a standard plaque assay using MDCK cells (Pang et al., 2013) .
Plasmids cDNAs encoding the E and M proteins of SARS-CoV Frankfurt 1 strain (Matsuyama et al., 2005) were obtained by reverse transcription and PCR of total RNA extracted from SARS-CoVinfected Vero cells, followed by PCR amplification using specific primers. pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His was provided by Ming-Fu Chang (National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan). To generate the plasmids pLenti6-E-V5His, pLenti6-3a-V5His, and pLenti-M-V5His, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets and then ligated into pLenti6-TOPO vectors (Invitrogen). To generate plasmids pCA7-flag-E, pCA7-flag-3a, and pCA7flag-M, pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-3a, and pCA7-HA-M, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets, digested with EcoR I and Not I, and subcloned into the EcoR I-Not I sites of the pCA7-flag-ASC plasmid or pCA7-HA-M2 plasmid, respectively (Ito et al., 2012) . To construct plasmids expressing the E mutant V25F, the mutated E fragments were amplified by inverse PCR with wildtype E-containing plasmids and specific primer sets. The PCR products were cleaved by Dpn I, ligated in a ligase-and T4 kinase-containing reaction and then transformed into DH5α competent cells (TOYOBO). To construct plasmids expressing the 3a mutant 3a-CS, fragments were amplified from wildtype 3a-containing plasmids using 3a-specific primer sets and transformed as described above.
HEK293FT cells were seeded in 24-well cluster plates and transfected with 1 µg pLenti6-E/3a/M-V5His, pLenti-GFP (green fluorescent protein), or pLenti-M2 using polyethylenimine (PEI) Max. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were lysed with RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 1% NP-40, 0.05% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM EDTA). And the lysates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) followed by electroblotting onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. The membranes were incubated over night with mouse anti-V5-tag (R960-25, Invitrogen), mouse anti-influenza A virus M2 (14C2, Abcam), mouse anti-GFP (GF200, Nacalai Tesque), or rabbit antitubulin (DM1A, Santa Cruz) antibodies, followed by horseradish peroxide-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Immuno Research Laboratories) or anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen). After washing 3 times with washing buffer (0.05% Tween-20/PBS), the membranes were exposed using Chemi-Lumi One Super (Nacalai Tesque), and the chemiluminescent signals were captured by an ImageQuant LAS-4000 mini apparatus (GE Healthcare).
To generate lentiviruses expressing V5-tagged SARS-CoV E, 3a, and M proteins, the full-length cDNA encoding each viral protein was cloned into the pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) using the following primers: SARS-CoV E forward, 5 -caccatgtactcattcgtttcgga-3 , and reverse, 5 -gaccagaagatcaggaactc-3 ; SARS-CoV 3a forward, 5caccatggatttgtttatgagatt-3 , and reverse, 5 -caaaggcacgctagtagtcg-3 ; SARS-CoV M forward, 5 -caccatggcagacaacggtactat-3 , and reverse, 5 -ctgtactagcaaagcaatat-3 . Sub-confluent monolayers of HEK293FT cells seeded in a collagen-coated dish (10 cm in diameter) were transfected with 3 µg of pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector expressing each viral protein or EGFP together with ViraPower Packaging Mix (Invitrogen) using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The supernatants containing lentiviruses were harvested and filtered through a 0.45 µm filter (Millipore) at 72-96 h post-transfection (Ito et al., 2012) . The lentiviral titer was then quantified using HT-1080 cells as described previously .
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were plated at a density of 8 × 10 5 in 24-well plate and infected with A/PR8 influenza virus or lentivirus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 or 0.2 for 1 h, respectively. Then, BMMs were stimulated with 1 µg/ml of LPS and cultured for additional 23 h in complete media. Supernatants were collected at 24 h post-infection and centrifuged to remove cell debris. The amount of IL-1β in the supernatants was measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using paired antibodies (eBioscience) (Ichinohe et al., 2010 .
To clarify the cellular localization of the wild-type and mutant 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-flag-3a or pCD7-flag-3a-CS together with 0.5 µg of ER-mCherry or DsRed-Golgi (Ito et al., 2012) . At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing with PBS and blocking with 4% BSA/PBS, the cells were incubated with a mouse anti-flag antibody (M2, Sigma) followed by incubation with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies).
To observe the cellular distribution of NLRP3 in the E-or 3a-expressing cells, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-EV25F, pCA7-HA-3a, pCA7-HA-3a-CS, or pCA7 control vector together with 0.5 µg of pCA7-NLRP3. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed and permeabilized with 4% paraformaldehyde and 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing and blocking, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti-HA (561, MBL) and mouse anti-NLRP3 (Cryo-2; AdipoGen) antibodies, followed by Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) and Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies). Fluorescent signals were observed by confocal microscopy (A1R + , Nikon).
Statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed Student's t-test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
We previously demonstrated that the influenza virus M2 protein (a proton-selective ion channel), its H37G mutant (which has lost its proton selectivity and enables the transport of other cations such as Na + and K + ), and the EMCV 2B protein (a Ca 2+ channel) stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV E protein acts as a Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels that activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto- Torres et al., 2015) . The fact that 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as viroporin prompted us to examine whether it also triggers inflammasome activation. Thus, we first generated lentivirus plasmids expressing V5-tagged proteins and confirmed their expression in HEK293FT cells by immunoblot analysis (Figures 1A-C) . We next transduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed BMMs with the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, 3a, M, influenza virus M2, or EMCV 2B proteins. Consistent with previous reports (Ichinohe et al., Figure 1D) . Similarly, the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins stimulated IL-1β release from LPS-primed BMMs ( Figure 1D) . Furthermore, IL-1β secretion from LPSprimed BMMs co-infected with E-and 3a-expressing lentiviruses was significantly higher than that from SARS-CoV E-expressing lentivirus-infected cells ( Figure 1E) . These data indicated that the expression of SARS-CoV viroporin 3a is sufficient to stimulate IL-1β secretion by LPS-primed BMMs.
Previous studies demonstrated that the N-terminal 40 amino acids of the SARS-CoV E protein are important for ion channel formation, and that mutations N15A and V25F [located in the transmembrane domain (from amino acid residues 7-38)] prevent ion conductivity (Wilson et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2007; Verdia-Baguena et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV 3a protein contains a cysteine-rich domain (amino acid residues 127-133) that is involved in the formation of a homodimer to generate the ion channel (Lu et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009) . Thus, mutation of the cysteine-rich domain blocks the ion conductivity by the 3a protein (Chan et al., 2009) . To this end, we substituted amino acids Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133 within the cysteine-rich domain of the SARS-CoV 3a protein with serine to generate a lentivirus expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutant, 3a-CS (Chan et al., 2009; Figure 2A) . To test whether the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is required to stimulate secretion of IL-1β, we transduced LPSprimed BMMs with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, V25F, 3a, 3a-CS, or M proteins. Consistent with a previous report (Nieto -Torres et al., 2015) , we found that the V25F mutant lentivirus failed to stimulate IL-1β release from BMMs ( Figure 2B) . Notably, the 3a-CS mutant completely abrogated IL-1β secretion (Figure 2B) , suggesting that the ion channel activity of the 3a protein is required for SARS-CoV 3a-induced IL-1β secretion.
FIGURE 4 | NLRP3 inflammasome activation by SARS-CoV 3a. HeLa cells were transfected with the expression plasmid encoding NLRP3 and that encoding HA-tagged SARS-CoV 3a, 3a-CS, E, or V25F, and by with a confocal microscope. Scale bars, 10 µm. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Next, we determined the subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV 3a protein using confocal microscopy. When the SARS-CoV Cell-free supernatants were collected at 24 h (lentiviruses) or 6 h (ATP) post-infection or stimulation, and analyzed for IL-1β by ELISA. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments, and indicate the mean ± SD; * * P < 0.01 and * * * P < 0.001.
3a protein was expressed in HeLa cells, we observed two main distribution patterns. Consistent with previous reports (Yu et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2005) , the 3a protein localized to the Golgi apparatus ( Figure 3A ). In addition, the 3a proteins concentrated in spot structures, which mainly localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (Figure 3B ). By contrast, the 3a-CS mutant was concentrated in the Golgi apparatus rather than in the ER and did not form spot structures (Figures 3A,B) . We next examined the intracellular localization of NLRP3. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome led to a redistribution from the cytosol to the perinuclear space, a process considered as a hallmark of NLRP3 activation (Zhou et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2013; Moriyama et al., 2016) . Although cells expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutants 3a-CS or V25F uniformly expressed NLRP3 throughout the cytoplasm, it was redistributed to the perinuclear region in SARS-CoV 3a-or E-expressing cells (Figure 4) . Together, these data provide evidence that the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for triggering the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Both K + Efflux and ROS Production Are Involved in the IL-1β Release Induced by the SARS-CoV 3a Protein
Finally, we investigated the mechanism by which SARS-CoV 3a triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A previous study showed that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) . In addition, K + efflux is a well-known activator of the NLRP3 inflammasome (Mariathasan et al., 2006; Petrilli et al., 2007) . These observations prompted us to examine whether K + efflux is required for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. To this end, BMMs in K + -rich medium were infected with influenza A virus or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins. In agreement with a previous result (Ichinohe et al., 2010) , we found that IL-1β secretion caused by influenza virus was completely blocked when the extracellular K + concentration was increased to 130 mM ( Figure 5A) . The inhibitory effect of the K + -rich medium was also observed when cells were stimulated with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins ( Figure 5B ). Since mitochondrial ROS are important for NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Nakahira et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011) , we next stimulated BMMs with extracellular ATP or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins in the presence or absence of the antioxidant, Mito-TEMPO, a scavenger that is specific for mitochondrial ROS Trnka et al., 2009) . As reported previously (Nakahira et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012) , treatment of BMMs with Mito-TEMPO completely blocked IL-1β secretion in response to ATP ( Figure 6A) . Similarly, IL-1β release induced by the SARS-CoV E and 3a proteins was significantly inhibited by Mito-TEMPO ( Figure 6B) . These observations indicate that the SARS-CoV 3a protein disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations and causes mitochondrial damages, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
In summary, we found that the ion channel activity of SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In addition, both K + efflux and mitochondrial ROS production are required for SARS-CoV 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion.
Thus far, several models have been proposed to explain NLRP3 inflammasome activation by RNA viruses. First, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Second, viroporins encoded by RNA viruses activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In the case of influenza virus, the proton-selective M2 ion channel in the acidic trans-Golgi network activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010) . Interestingly, an M2 mutant in which histidine was substituted with glycine at position 37 (H37G), causing loss of proton selectivity, enables transport of other cations (i.e., Na + and K + ), thereby leading to enhanced secretion of IL-1β from LPS-primed BMMs and dendritic cells when compared with the wild-type M2 protein.
In addition, the 2B proteins of EMCV, poliovirus, enterovirus 71 (EV71), and human rhinovirus (a member of the Picornaviridae family) triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inducing Ca 2+ flux from the ER and Golgi compartments (Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013) . Furthermore, hepatitis C virus stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β production though its p7 viroporin (Negash et al., 2013; Farag et al., 2017) . Third, a recent study has demonstrated that the 3D protein of EV71 directly interacts with NLRP3 to facilitate the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasome complex (Wang et al., 2017) .
In the case of SARS-CoV, the viroporin E forms forms Ca 2+permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In addition, another viroporin 3a was found to induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Yue et al., 2018) . Although alanine substitution at Cys-133, which is required for dimer or tetramer formation (Lu et al., 2006) , still allows activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by interacting with caspase-1 (Yue et al., 2018) , the ion channel activity-loss mutant 3a-CS (Cys-to-Ser substitution at positions Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133) (Chan et al., 2009 ) completely abrogated IL-1β secretion from LPS-primed BMMs, suggesting that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV has the ability to induce the NLRP3 inflammasome activation by multiple mechanisms. Previous studies show that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV is localized to the plasma membrane (Minakshi and Padhan, 2014) and acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) , thereby (presumably) stimulating the K + efflux at the plasma membrane. Indeed, we found that IL-1β secretion caused by the 3a protein was significantly inhibited when the extracellular K + concentration increased to 130 mM. Although it remains unclear whether another viroporin 8a of SARS-CoV (Castano-Rodriguez et al., 2018) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, these data highlights the importance of viroporins in SARS-CoV-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A better understanding of the mechanism that governs the NLRP3 inflammasome will facilitate the development of more effective interventions for the treatment of infectious diseases and increase our understanding of viral pathogenesis. | What type of ion channels are formed by the SARS-CoV E protein? | {
"answer_start": [
5694
],
"text": [
"Ca 2+ -permeable"
]
} | false |
296 | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viroporin 3a Activates the NLRP3 Inflammasome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6361828/
SHA: f02d0c1e8b0109648e578662dc250abe349a033c
Authors: Chen, I-Yin; Moriyama, Miyu; Chang, Ming-Fu; Ichinohe, Takeshi
Date: 2019-01-29
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00050
License: cc-by
Abstract: Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) regulates the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β) and IL-18. We previously showed that influenza virus M2 or encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) 2B proteins stimulate IL-1β secretion following activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. However, the mechanism by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we provide direct evidence that SARS-CoV 3a protein activates the NLRP3 inflammasome in lipopolysaccharide-primed macrophages. SARS-CoV 3a was sufficient to cause the NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The ion channel activity of the 3a protein was essential for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. While cells uninfected or infected with a lentivirus expressing a 3a protein defective in ion channel activity expressed NLRP3 uniformly throughout the cytoplasm, NLRP3 was redistributed to the perinuclear space in cells infected with a lentivirus expressing the 3a protein. K(+) efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species were important for SARS-CoV 3a-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. These results highlight the importance of viroporins, transmembrane pore-forming viral proteins, in virus-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation.
Text: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a member of the genus Betacoronavirus within the family Coronaviridae, is an enveloped virus with a single-stranded positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 30 kb in length. The 5 two-thirds of the genome encodes large polyprotein precursors, open reading frame (ORF) 1 and ORF1b, which are proteolytically cleaved to generate 16 non-structural proteins (Tan et al., 2005) . The 3 one-third of the genome encodes four structural proteins, spike (S), envelope (E), matrix (M) and nucleocapsid (N), and non-structural proteins, along with a set of accessory proteins (3a, 3b, 6, 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, and 9b) (Perlman and Dandekar, 2005; Tan et al., 2005) . SARS-CoV is the etiological agent of SARS (Drosten et al., 2003; Fouchier et al., 2003; Ksiazek et al., 2003; Kuiken et al., 2003; Peiris et al., 2003) . At least 8,098 laboratory-confirmed cases of human infection, with a fatality rate of 9.6%, were reported to the World Health Organization from November 2002 to July 2003. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, were detected in autopsy tissues from SARS patients (He et al., 2006) . Although dysregulation of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in lung injury and the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood.
The innate immune systems utilizes pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (Medzhitov, 2001; Kawai and Akira, 2010) . Recognition of virus infection plays an important role in limiting virus replication at the early stages of infection. Nod-like receptor family, pyrin domain-containing 3 (NLRP3) is activated by a wide variety of stimuli, including virus infection (Bauernfeind et al., 2011) . Four models describing activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome have been proposed thus far (Hornung and Latz, 2010; Schroder et al., 2010; Tschopp and Schroder, 2010) . First, the disturbances in intracellular ionic concentrations, including K + efflux and Ca 2+ influx, play an important role (Fernandes-Alnemri et al., 2007; Petrilli et al., 2007; Arlehamn et al., 2010; Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Murakami et al., 2012; Munoz-Planillo et al., 2013) . Second, cathepsin B and L, which are specific lysosomal cysteine proteases, are though to play a role after phagocytosis of cholesterol crystals (Duewell et al., 2010) , fibrillar peptide amyloid-beta , silica crystals, and aluminum salts . Third is the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) or mitochondrial DNA from damaged mitochondria (Zhou et al., , 2011 Nakahira et al., 2011; Shimada et al., 2012) . Finally, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Upon activation, the NLRP3 is recruited to the mitochondria via association with mitochondrial antiviral signaling (MAVS) or mitofusin 2 expressed on the outer mitochondrial membrane Subramanian et al., 2013) ; these molecules then recruit the apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a caspase recruitment domain (ASC) and pro-caspase-1 to form the NLRP3 inflammasome. This event activates the downstream molecule, caspase-1, which catalyzes the proteolytic processing of pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into their active forms and stimulates their secretion (Kayagaki et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2015) .
It is increasingly evident that NLRP3 detects RNA viruses by sensing the cellular damage or distress induced by viroporins (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) , transmembrane pore-forming proteins, encoded by certain RNA viruses; these proteins alter membrane permeability to ions by forming membrane channels (Tan et al., 2005; Chen and Ichinohe, 2015) . A recent study shows that the SARS-CoV E protein, which comprise only 76 amino acids, forms Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . Although the E and 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, which comprise 274 amino acids and contain three transmembrane domains (Zeng et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006) , are thought to act as Na + /K + and K + channels, respectively (Wilson et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2007; Parthasarathy et al., 2008; Pervushin et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011) , the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome remains unknown. Here, we examined the role of the 3a protein in activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Six-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Committees of the Institute of Medical Science (The University of Tokyo).
Bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) were prepared as described previously (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . In brief, bone marrow was obtained from the tibia and femur by flushing with Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM; Nacalai Tesque). Bone marrow cells were cultured for 5 days in DMEM supplemented with 30% L929 cell supernatant containing macrophage colony-stimulating factor, 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), and L-glutamine (2 mM) at 37 • C/5% CO 2 . HEK293FT cells (a human embryonic kidney cell line) and HeLa cells (a human epithelial carcinoma cell line) were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque). MDCK cells (Madin-Darby canine kidney cells) and HT-1080 cells (a human fibrosarcoma cell line) were grown in Eagle's minimal essential medium (E-MEM; Nacalai Tesque) supplemented with 10% FBS, penicillin (100 units/ml), and streptomycin (100 µg/ml) (Nacalai Tesque).
Influenza A virus strain A/PR8 (H1N1) was grown at 35 • C for 2 days in the allantoic cavities of 10-day-old fertile chicken eggs (Ichinohe et al., 2009) . The viral titer was quantified in a standard plaque assay using MDCK cells (Pang et al., 2013) .
Plasmids cDNAs encoding the E and M proteins of SARS-CoV Frankfurt 1 strain (Matsuyama et al., 2005) were obtained by reverse transcription and PCR of total RNA extracted from SARS-CoVinfected Vero cells, followed by PCR amplification using specific primers. pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His was provided by Ming-Fu Chang (National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan). To generate the plasmids pLenti6-E-V5His, pLenti6-3a-V5His, and pLenti-M-V5His, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets and then ligated into pLenti6-TOPO vectors (Invitrogen). To generate plasmids pCA7-flag-E, pCA7-flag-3a, and pCA7flag-M, pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-3a, and pCA7-HA-M, cDNA fragments of E, 3a, and M were amplified from pcDNA3.1D-E-V5His, pcDNA3.1D-3a-V5His, and pcDNA3.1D-M-V5His using specific primer sets, digested with EcoR I and Not I, and subcloned into the EcoR I-Not I sites of the pCA7-flag-ASC plasmid or pCA7-HA-M2 plasmid, respectively (Ito et al., 2012) . To construct plasmids expressing the E mutant V25F, the mutated E fragments were amplified by inverse PCR with wildtype E-containing plasmids and specific primer sets. The PCR products were cleaved by Dpn I, ligated in a ligase-and T4 kinase-containing reaction and then transformed into DH5α competent cells (TOYOBO). To construct plasmids expressing the 3a mutant 3a-CS, fragments were amplified from wildtype 3a-containing plasmids using 3a-specific primer sets and transformed as described above.
HEK293FT cells were seeded in 24-well cluster plates and transfected with 1 µg pLenti6-E/3a/M-V5His, pLenti-GFP (green fluorescent protein), or pLenti-M2 using polyethylenimine (PEI) Max. At 24 h post-transfection, the cells were lysed with RIPA buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, 1% NP-40, 0.05% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), 150 mM NaCl and 1 mM EDTA). And the lysates were subjected to SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) followed by electroblotting onto polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes. The membranes were incubated over night with mouse anti-V5-tag (R960-25, Invitrogen), mouse anti-influenza A virus M2 (14C2, Abcam), mouse anti-GFP (GF200, Nacalai Tesque), or rabbit antitubulin (DM1A, Santa Cruz) antibodies, followed by horseradish peroxide-conjugated anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Immuno Research Laboratories) or anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen). After washing 3 times with washing buffer (0.05% Tween-20/PBS), the membranes were exposed using Chemi-Lumi One Super (Nacalai Tesque), and the chemiluminescent signals were captured by an ImageQuant LAS-4000 mini apparatus (GE Healthcare).
To generate lentiviruses expressing V5-tagged SARS-CoV E, 3a, and M proteins, the full-length cDNA encoding each viral protein was cloned into the pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector (Invitrogen) using the following primers: SARS-CoV E forward, 5 -caccatgtactcattcgtttcgga-3 , and reverse, 5 -gaccagaagatcaggaactc-3 ; SARS-CoV 3a forward, 5caccatggatttgtttatgagatt-3 , and reverse, 5 -caaaggcacgctagtagtcg-3 ; SARS-CoV M forward, 5 -caccatggcagacaacggtactat-3 , and reverse, 5 -ctgtactagcaaagcaatat-3 . Sub-confluent monolayers of HEK293FT cells seeded in a collagen-coated dish (10 cm in diameter) were transfected with 3 µg of pLenti6.3/V5-TOPO vector expressing each viral protein or EGFP together with ViraPower Packaging Mix (Invitrogen) using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). The supernatants containing lentiviruses were harvested and filtered through a 0.45 µm filter (Millipore) at 72-96 h post-transfection (Ito et al., 2012) . The lentiviral titer was then quantified using HT-1080 cells as described previously .
Bone marrow-derived macrophages were plated at a density of 8 × 10 5 in 24-well plate and infected with A/PR8 influenza virus or lentivirus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 5 or 0.2 for 1 h, respectively. Then, BMMs were stimulated with 1 µg/ml of LPS and cultured for additional 23 h in complete media. Supernatants were collected at 24 h post-infection and centrifuged to remove cell debris. The amount of IL-1β in the supernatants was measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using paired antibodies (eBioscience) (Ichinohe et al., 2010 .
To clarify the cellular localization of the wild-type and mutant 3a proteins of SARS-CoV, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-flag-3a or pCD7-flag-3a-CS together with 0.5 µg of ER-mCherry or DsRed-Golgi (Ito et al., 2012) . At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and permeabilized with 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing with PBS and blocking with 4% BSA/PBS, the cells were incubated with a mouse anti-flag antibody (M2, Sigma) followed by incubation with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies).
To observe the cellular distribution of NLRP3 in the E-or 3a-expressing cells, HeLa cells were cultured on coverslips and transfected with 1 µg of pCA7-HA-E, pCA7-HA-EV25F, pCA7-HA-3a, pCA7-HA-3a-CS, or pCA7 control vector together with 0.5 µg of pCA7-NLRP3. At 24 h post-transfection, cells were fixed and permeabilized with 4% paraformaldehyde and 1% Triton X-100/PBS. After washing and blocking, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti-HA (561, MBL) and mouse anti-NLRP3 (Cryo-2; AdipoGen) antibodies, followed by Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (H+L) and Alexa Fluor 568-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG (H+L) (Life Technologies). Fluorescent signals were observed by confocal microscopy (A1R + , Nikon).
Statistical significance was tested using a two-tailed Student's t-test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
We previously demonstrated that the influenza virus M2 protein (a proton-selective ion channel), its H37G mutant (which has lost its proton selectivity and enables the transport of other cations such as Na + and K + ), and the EMCV 2B protein (a Ca 2+ channel) stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β secretion (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV E protein acts as a Ca 2+ -permeable ion channels that activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto- Torres et al., 2015) . The fact that 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as viroporin prompted us to examine whether it also triggers inflammasome activation. Thus, we first generated lentivirus plasmids expressing V5-tagged proteins and confirmed their expression in HEK293FT cells by immunoblot analysis (Figures 1A-C) . We next transduced lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-primed BMMs with the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, 3a, M, influenza virus M2, or EMCV 2B proteins. Consistent with previous reports (Ichinohe et al., Figure 1D) . Similarly, the lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins stimulated IL-1β release from LPS-primed BMMs ( Figure 1D) . Furthermore, IL-1β secretion from LPSprimed BMMs co-infected with E-and 3a-expressing lentiviruses was significantly higher than that from SARS-CoV E-expressing lentivirus-infected cells ( Figure 1E) . These data indicated that the expression of SARS-CoV viroporin 3a is sufficient to stimulate IL-1β secretion by LPS-primed BMMs.
Previous studies demonstrated that the N-terminal 40 amino acids of the SARS-CoV E protein are important for ion channel formation, and that mutations N15A and V25F [located in the transmembrane domain (from amino acid residues 7-38)] prevent ion conductivity (Wilson et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2007; Verdia-Baguena et al., 2012) . In addition, the SARS-CoV 3a protein contains a cysteine-rich domain (amino acid residues 127-133) that is involved in the formation of a homodimer to generate the ion channel (Lu et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009) . Thus, mutation of the cysteine-rich domain blocks the ion conductivity by the 3a protein (Chan et al., 2009) . To this end, we substituted amino acids Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133 within the cysteine-rich domain of the SARS-CoV 3a protein with serine to generate a lentivirus expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutant, 3a-CS (Chan et al., 2009; Figure 2A) . To test whether the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is required to stimulate secretion of IL-1β, we transduced LPSprimed BMMs with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E, V25F, 3a, 3a-CS, or M proteins. Consistent with a previous report (Nieto -Torres et al., 2015) , we found that the V25F mutant lentivirus failed to stimulate IL-1β release from BMMs ( Figure 2B) . Notably, the 3a-CS mutant completely abrogated IL-1β secretion (Figure 2B) , suggesting that the ion channel activity of the 3a protein is required for SARS-CoV 3a-induced IL-1β secretion.
FIGURE 4 | NLRP3 inflammasome activation by SARS-CoV 3a. HeLa cells were transfected with the expression plasmid encoding NLRP3 and that encoding HA-tagged SARS-CoV 3a, 3a-CS, E, or V25F, and by with a confocal microscope. Scale bars, 10 µm. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments.
Next, we determined the subcellular localization of the SARS-CoV 3a protein using confocal microscopy. When the SARS-CoV Cell-free supernatants were collected at 24 h (lentiviruses) or 6 h (ATP) post-infection or stimulation, and analyzed for IL-1β by ELISA. Data are representative of at least three independent experiments, and indicate the mean ± SD; * * P < 0.01 and * * * P < 0.001.
3a protein was expressed in HeLa cells, we observed two main distribution patterns. Consistent with previous reports (Yu et al., 2004; Yuan et al., 2005) , the 3a protein localized to the Golgi apparatus ( Figure 3A ). In addition, the 3a proteins concentrated in spot structures, which mainly localized to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) (Figure 3B ). By contrast, the 3a-CS mutant was concentrated in the Golgi apparatus rather than in the ER and did not form spot structures (Figures 3A,B) . We next examined the intracellular localization of NLRP3. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome led to a redistribution from the cytosol to the perinuclear space, a process considered as a hallmark of NLRP3 activation (Zhou et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2013; Moriyama et al., 2016) . Although cells expressing the ion channel activity-loss mutants 3a-CS or V25F uniformly expressed NLRP3 throughout the cytoplasm, it was redistributed to the perinuclear region in SARS-CoV 3a-or E-expressing cells (Figure 4) . Together, these data provide evidence that the ion channel activity of the SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for triggering the NLRP3 inflammasome.
Both K + Efflux and ROS Production Are Involved in the IL-1β Release Induced by the SARS-CoV 3a Protein
Finally, we investigated the mechanism by which SARS-CoV 3a triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A previous study showed that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) . In addition, K + efflux is a well-known activator of the NLRP3 inflammasome (Mariathasan et al., 2006; Petrilli et al., 2007) . These observations prompted us to examine whether K + efflux is required for 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion. To this end, BMMs in K + -rich medium were infected with influenza A virus or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins. In agreement with a previous result (Ichinohe et al., 2010) , we found that IL-1β secretion caused by influenza virus was completely blocked when the extracellular K + concentration was increased to 130 mM ( Figure 5A) . The inhibitory effect of the K + -rich medium was also observed when cells were stimulated with lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins ( Figure 5B ). Since mitochondrial ROS are important for NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Nakahira et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2011) , we next stimulated BMMs with extracellular ATP or lentiviruses expressing the SARS-CoV E or 3a proteins in the presence or absence of the antioxidant, Mito-TEMPO, a scavenger that is specific for mitochondrial ROS Trnka et al., 2009) . As reported previously (Nakahira et al., 2011; Ito et al., 2012) , treatment of BMMs with Mito-TEMPO completely blocked IL-1β secretion in response to ATP ( Figure 6A) . Similarly, IL-1β release induced by the SARS-CoV E and 3a proteins was significantly inhibited by Mito-TEMPO ( Figure 6B) . These observations indicate that the SARS-CoV 3a protein disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations and causes mitochondrial damages, thereby activating the NLRP3 inflammasome.
In summary, we found that the ion channel activity of SARS-CoV 3a protein is essential for activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In addition, both K + efflux and mitochondrial ROS production are required for SARS-CoV 3a-mediated IL-1β secretion.
Thus far, several models have been proposed to explain NLRP3 inflammasome activation by RNA viruses. First, viral RNA or RNA cleavage products generated by RNase L activate the NLRP3 inflammasome via the DExD/H-box helicase, DHX33 (Allen et al., 2009; Mitoma et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014; Chakrabarti et al., 2015) . Second, viroporins encoded by RNA viruses activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010; Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013; Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In the case of influenza virus, the proton-selective M2 ion channel in the acidic trans-Golgi network activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Ichinohe et al., 2010) . Interestingly, an M2 mutant in which histidine was substituted with glycine at position 37 (H37G), causing loss of proton selectivity, enables transport of other cations (i.e., Na + and K + ), thereby leading to enhanced secretion of IL-1β from LPS-primed BMMs and dendritic cells when compared with the wild-type M2 protein.
In addition, the 2B proteins of EMCV, poliovirus, enterovirus 71 (EV71), and human rhinovirus (a member of the Picornaviridae family) triggers NLRP3 inflammasome activation by inducing Ca 2+ flux from the ER and Golgi compartments (Ito et al., 2012; Triantafilou et al., 2013) . Furthermore, hepatitis C virus stimulates NLRP3 inflammasome-mediated IL-1β production though its p7 viroporin (Negash et al., 2013; Farag et al., 2017) . Third, a recent study has demonstrated that the 3D protein of EV71 directly interacts with NLRP3 to facilitate the assembly of NLRP3 inflammasome complex (Wang et al., 2017) .
In the case of SARS-CoV, the viroporin E forms forms Ca 2+permeable ion channels and activates the NLRP3 inflammasome (Nieto-Torres et al., 2015) . In addition, another viroporin 3a was found to induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation (Yue et al., 2018) . Although alanine substitution at Cys-133, which is required for dimer or tetramer formation (Lu et al., 2006) , still allows activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by interacting with caspase-1 (Yue et al., 2018) , the ion channel activity-loss mutant 3a-CS (Cys-to-Ser substitution at positions Cys-127, Cys-130, and Cys-133) (Chan et al., 2009 ) completely abrogated IL-1β secretion from LPS-primed BMMs, suggesting that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV has the ability to induce the NLRP3 inflammasome activation by multiple mechanisms. Previous studies show that the 3a protein of SARS-CoV is localized to the plasma membrane (Minakshi and Padhan, 2014) and acts as a K + channel (Lu et al., 2006) , thereby (presumably) stimulating the K + efflux at the plasma membrane. Indeed, we found that IL-1β secretion caused by the 3a protein was significantly inhibited when the extracellular K + concentration increased to 130 mM. Although it remains unclear whether another viroporin 8a of SARS-CoV (Castano-Rodriguez et al., 2018) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, these data highlights the importance of viroporins in SARS-CoV-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. A better understanding of the mechanism that governs the NLRP3 inflammasome will facilitate the development of more effective interventions for the treatment of infectious diseases and increase our understanding of viral pathogenesis. | What does the SARS-CoV protein activate? | {
"answer_start": [
5742
],
"text": [
"NLRP3 inflammasome"
]
} | false |
887 | A novel anti-mycobacterial function of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804704/
SHA: f6ed1f1e9999e57793addb1c9c54f61c7861a995
Authors: Cheung, Benny KW; Yim, Howard CH; Lee, Norris CM; Lau, Allan SY
Date: 2009-12-17
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2172-10-64
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. To combat against this pathogen, immune cells release cytokines including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which is pivotal in the development of protective granulomas. Our previous results showed that Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG), a mycobacterium used as a model to investigate the immune response against MTB, stimulates the induction of TNF-α via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) in human blood monocytes. Since MAPK phosphatase-1 (MKP-1) is known to regulate MAPK activities, we examined whether MKP-1 plays a role in BCG-induced MAPK activation and cytokine expression. RESULTS: Primary human blood monocytes were treated with BCG and assayed for MKP-1 expression. Our results demonstrated that following exposure to BCG, there was an increase in the expression of MKP-1. Additionally, the induction of MKP-1 was regulated by p38 MAPK and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2). Surprisingly, when MKP-1 expression was blocked by its specific siRNA, there was a significant decrease in the levels of phospho-MAPK (p38 MAPK and ERK1/2) and TNF-α inducible by BCG. CONCLUSIONS: Since TNF-α is pivotal in granuloma formation, the results indicated an unexpected positive function of MKP-1 against mycobacterial infection as opposed to its usual phosphatase activity.
Text: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world, especially in the developing countries [1] . The disease is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and approximately one third of the world's population has been infected by this pathogen. In a recent report, World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that there are 9.2 million new TB cases around the world in 2006 [1] .
In response to MTB infection, induction of cytokines by immune cells is an important defense mechanism. The infected macrophages secrete intercellular signaling factors, proinflammatory cytokines, to mediate the inflammatory response leading to the formation of granuloma and induction of T-cell mediated immunity [2] . In order to understand TB pathogenesis, signaling pathways induced by mycobacteria have long been a subject of interest. Mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPKs) including extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), p38 MAPK, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) have been implicated as important cellular signaling molecules activated by mycobacteria [3] . Previous reports have shown that p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 are required in the induction of TNF-α expression in human monocytes infected with M. tuberculosis H37Rv [4] . We have further revealed the significant role of MAPKs in the signal transduction events of mycobacterial activation of primary human blood monocytes (PBMo) leading to cytokine expressions via the interaction with PKR [5] . However, the subsequent events as to how MAPK is regulated and how such regulation affects cytokine production in response to mycobacteria remain to be elucidated.
Since MAPKs are activated by phosphorylation, dephosphorylation of MAPKs seems to be an efficient process to inactivate their activities. It can be achieved by specific protein kinase phosphatases which can remove the phosphate group from MAPKs. Examples of these phosphatases include tyrosine phosphatases, serine/threonine phosphatases, and dual-specificity phosphatases (DUSPs). Some DUSPs are also known as MAPK phosphatases (MKPs) [6] [7] [8] . Currently, there are at least 10 MKPs identified, while MKP-1 is the most studied member of the family. The regulatory role of MKP-1 on cytokine induction is best demonstrated by MKP-1 knockout (KO) macrophages in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria. MKP-1 KO macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α in response to LPS treatment [9] . Consistent with these results, another group further revealed that LPS-treated MKP-1 KO bone marrow-derived macrophages show increased AP-1 DNA-binding activity [10] . Also, they showed that LPS-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88) and TIR domain-containing adaptor inducing IFN-β (TRIF) [10] , thus demonstrating the role of MKP-1 in signal transduction.
Not only LPS, other TLR inducers including CpG, peptidoglycan, poly IC, and Pam 3 Cys can regulate cytokine expressions including TNF-α, IL-10 via MKP-1 activities [10, 11] . In these processes, MKP-1 serves to mitigate the undesirable effects of septic shock and maintain organ functions by restraining the inflammatory responses following bacterial infection. Another example of MKP-1 function is the immune response to Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a Gram positive bacteria. There are higher levels of cytokine production including TNF-α, IL-6, and MIP-1α in MKP-1 KO mice infected with S. aureus [12] . Also, the mice would have a rapid development of multiorgan dysfunction as well as faster mortality rate upon challenge with heat-killed S. aureus [12] . Taken together, these results suggest that MKP-1 protects the host from overactivation of the immune system in response to Gram negative or Gram positive bacteria.
In the past, it was believed that different MKP/DUSP family members have overlapping functions. However, the emergence of DUSP2 turned the concept up side down [13] . It was shown that DUSP2 behaves differently and is opposite to the function as stated above. In DUSP2 KO cells, they produced less inflammatory mediators, implying that DUSP2 may play a role in mediating instead of limiting inflammation. For instances, when DUSP2 KO macrophages were treated with LPS, there were less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, IL-12-producing cells when compared to those of the wild type counterparts [13] . When the DUSP2 KO bone marrow-derived mast cells were first sensitized with immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor (FcεRI) and then stimulated with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen, they produced lower TNF mRNA levels, diminished IL-6 production, less phosphorylation of ERK1/2, p38 MAPK, and less transcriptional activities by Elk1 and NFAT-AP-1 [13] .
These unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 have been hypothesized to be due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . Stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages showed increases in phosphorylation of JNK. Moreover, inhibition of JNK by small molecule inhibitors showed increases in phosphorylation of ERK [13] . The authors also showed that there were physical interactions of DUSP2 with ERK2, DUSP2 with JNK2, as well as DUSP2 and p38 MAPK after stimulation of the cells with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen. Nevertheless, the details of the crosstalks between MAPKs and phosphatases need further investigation. Thus, the MKP family plays a critical role in the regulation of immune responses.
Innate immune response protects the host from MTB infection by secretion of cytokines including TNF-α in immune cells. Meanwhile, MAPK is one of the critical proteins in the regulation of immunity and cytokine expression. Since MAPK is regulated by MKP-1 in response to LPS and the activation of MAPK is important in BCGinduced cytokine expression, we hypothesize that MKP-1 plays a critical role in the immune regulation of BCG in human monocytes. We examined the involvement of MKP-1 in BCG-induced MAPK activation and its consequent cytokine expression. Here, we present evidences that MKP-1 plays an unexpected role in the regulation of cytokine induction by BCG through its control of MAPK phosphorylation.
It has been reported that many inducers including growth factors, LPS, peptidoglycan, and dexamethasone can stimulate the expression of MKP-1 in human macrophages, microglia, mast cells or fibroblasts [6] . To investigate the role of different TLR inducers in MKP-1 induction process in human blood monocytes, the level of MKP-1 mRNA was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) method. PBMo were isolated from primary human blood mononuclear cells and stimulated with Pam 3 Cys (TLR2 agonist), poly IC (TLR3 agonist), or LPS (TLR4 agonist) for 1 and 3 hours. Following exposure to Pam 3 Cys or LPS, there were significant inductions of MKP-1 mRNA levels within 1 hour of treatment ( Figure 1A ). These effects on MKP-1 induction continued for 3 hours post-treatment with Pam 3 Cys ( Figure 1A ). In contrast, poly IC did not induce MKP-1 ( Figure 1A ). The results indicate that different inducers showed differential up-regulation of MKP-1 expression.
LPS has been extensively used to demonstrate the role of MKP-1 in immune response both in vivo and in vitro [9, 12] . To establish a foundation for interpretation of subsequent experimental results, LPS was used as a positive control for the induction of MKP-1 expression. To determine the levels of MKP-1 in response to LPS, kinetics of MKP-1 transcription were determined by QPCR. There was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA, which peaked as early as 1 hour upon LPS stimulation, and the levels gradually decreased over a course of 6 hours. These results showed that LPS induced MKP-1 expression (Figure 1B) .
Next, to demonstrate the induction of specific phosphatases by BCG, kinetics of MKP-1 expression in PBMo was studied by using QPCR during BCG treatment. Similar to the results produced by LPS, upon the addition of BCG (MOI = 1 CFU/cell), there was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA within 1 hour of BCG treatment as determined by Taqman probe specific for MKP-1 ( Figure 2A ). The effects lasted for at least 6 hours ( Figure 2A ).
To examine whether the changes of protein production were in parallel to that of the mRNA levels, the protein levels of MKP-1 were measured by Western blotting. In response to BCG, PBMo produced the MKP-1 protein as early as 30 minutes after treatment. The protein levels were maintained for 2 hours and dropped to basal levels at 3 hours ( Figure 2B ). The results demonstrated that there was MKP-1 induction in response to BCG activation in human monocytes.
It has been shown that inhibition of p38 MAPK either by specific inhibitor or siRNA reduced the expression of MKP-1 in LPS-or peptidoglycan-treated macrophages [14] . To determine the mechanisms involved in the BCGinduced MKP-1 expression, PBMo were pretreated with several inhibitors including PD98059 (inhibitor for MAP kinase kinase [MEK] or ERK1/2), SB203580 (inhibitor for p38 MAPK), SP600125 (inhibitor for JNK), and CAPE (inhibitor for NF-κB) for 1 hour. A range of concentrations of each inhibitor was used to test their optimal concentrations and effects on cell viability and kinase inhibitions. BCG was added afterwards and total RNA was harvested. The results demonstrated that, with the inhibition of ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK activities by their corresponding relatively specific inhibitors, MKP-1 expressions were significantly reduced ( Figure 3 ). In addition, using higher dose of SB203580, we showed that the inhibition is increased further (data not shown). On the contrary, pretreatment of the cells with CAPE and SP600125 did not affect the induction of MKP-1 by BCG ( Figure 3 ). These results suggest that BCG-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2.
Throughout the above experiments, the primary goal was to examine the induction of MKP-1 by BCG in human monocytes. Thus, to further examine the role of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling, transfection of siRNA into PBMo was used to knockdown the activity of MKP-1. To demonstrate that the MKP-1 siRNA can indeed knockdown the target gene, PBMo were first transfected with control or MKP-1 siRNA and then treated with BCG for 3 hours. Levels of MKP-1 mRNA were measured by RT-PCR method.
In Figure 4A , BCG stimulated MKP-1 expression (lanes 1 and 2). In MKP-1 siRNA transfected monocytes, induction of MKP-1 by BCG was significantly decreased (lanes 2 and 4). The results showed that the siRNA does abrogate the levels of MKP-1 mRNA.
To further determine whether MKP-1 siRNA affects BCGinduced MKP-1 at protein levels, PBMo were treated as above and MKP-1 proteins were measured by Western blotting. The results showed that BCG could induce MKP-1 proteins as usual for cells transfected with control siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 1-3). However, the levels of BCGinduced MKP-1 protein expression were reduced in cells transfected with MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 4-6). Together, the results suggest that MKP-1 siRNA not only reduced the MKP-1 mRNA in BCG treatment but also abrogated the BCG-induced MKP-1 protein.
As stated in the literature [9] , MKP-1 KO mice showed increased TNF-α production in response to LPS. On the basis of the above MKP-1 siRNA results, LPS was then used as a control to demonstrate the effects of this MKP-1 siRNA system. cytokine expression induced by LPS in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells suggest that the siRNA system is effective in knocking down the MKP-1 expression and MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced TNF-α expression.
To investigate the effect of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced cytokine expression, the levels of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA were measured by QPCR method. PBMo were transfected with either control or MKP-1 siRNA. Following exposure to BCG with control siRNA, there were significant inductions of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA levels for 3 hours after treatment as previously reported ( [5] and data not shown). Next, the effects of MKP-1 siRNA were examined on the cytokine expression induced by BCG. Surprisingly, there was a significant abrogation of BCGinduced TNF-α expression by MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4D ). With the knockdown of MKP-1, the level of BCG-induced TNF-α was only 60% compared to that of the control cells, while BCG-induced IL-6 and IL-10 were unchanged in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells. The results revealed that MKP-1 plays a role in the induction of TNF-α expression upon BCG stimulation, which may be different from that of its conventional functions in which MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced signaling pathways [7] .
The unexpected observations in cytokine expression lead to the investigation on the effects of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced MAPK activation. MKP-1 was found to have a preferential substrate binding to p38 MAPK and JNK than ERK1/2 [7] . The phosphorylation status of MAPKs was assessed in control or MKP-1 siRNA transfected PBMo. Western blotting results demonstrated that BCGinduced both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 phosphorylation in 15 minutes (data not shown) and peaked at 30 minutes, and then returned to basal levels in cells treated with the control siRNA ( Figure 5 ). Similar to the results of cytokine expression, phosphorylation of both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 in response to BCG was decreased in monocytes transfected with MKP-1 siRNA instead of the expected increase in phosphorylation ( Figure 5 ). The results suggest that MKP-1 knockdown would result in reduced MAPK phosphorylation by BCG, implying that the reduced level of TNF-α production in BCG stimulated monocytes is due to reduced phosphorylation of MAPKs by MKP-1 siRNA.
This report presented evidences that a novel function of MKP-1 is uncovered in cytokine regulation in response to mycobacterial infection. BCG induces MKP-1 as a rapid response (Figure 2) . The induction mechanism of MKP-1 by BCG is dependent on both ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK ( Figure 3 ). Using siRNA approach, the functions of MKP-1 can be examined in primary human monocytes. The results showed that the BCG-induced MAPKs activation as well as cytokine expression are downstream of MKP-1 ( Figures 4D and 5) . Thus, MKP-1 is a critical signaling molecule that is involved in BCG-induced cytokine expression.
Previous reports have shown that MKP-1 induced by LPS or peptidoglycan is dependent on p38 MAPK [14] . Accordingly, BCG-induced MKP-1 can be inhibited by both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 inhibitors. Interestingly, it has been shown that degradation of MKP-1 is reduced after ERK1/2 phosphorylation [15] . It can be hypothesized that BCG-induced MKP-1 proteins can be stabilized by ERK1/2 and the detailed mechanisms involved require more exploration. Also, since the inhibition of MKP-1 expression by both inhibitors (for p38 MAPK and ERK1/ 2) was not complete, it is believed that other proteins may be involved in the BCG-induced MKP-1 expression.
On the basis of the literature results on LPS effects ( Figure 6 ), the original expectation for this project is that MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator. LPS-stimulated MKP-1 KO peritoneal macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α [9] . In doing so, LPS-induced MKP-1 could BCG-induced MAPK phosphorylation is decreased by MKP-1 siRNA prevent prolonged TNF-α production as in sepsis which may lead to severe damage to the host. It was expected that BCG induces MKP-1 and its induction would correlate with the dephosphorylation of MAPKs including p38 MAPK. By blocking the MKP-1 using siRNA, it was expected to have increased p38 MAPK phosphorylation and prolonged TNF-α production in response to BCG. Nevertheless, our results shown here are diametrically opposite. One possibility for the unexpected results may be due to non-specific effects of transfection or siRNA. However, this was not the case since there was a prolonged and increased TNF-α expression after the MKP-1 siRNA-transfected monocytes were treated with LPS (Figure 4C ).
There is now a new hypothesis to explain such paradoxical effects of MKP-1 in TNF-α regulation in which the phosphatase plays a role in positive regulation of TNF-α production in response to BCG as in the case of DUSP2 [13] . The structures of MKP-1 and DUSP2 are similar, with which they both contain a MAPK-interacting domain and a phosphatase catalytic site. By contrast, other DUSP may have extra domains, e.g., PEST [6] . Here, we postulate that the function of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling is similar to that of the DUSP2/PAC1.
Actually, the discovery of DUSP2 has initially created some paradoxical questions. As described, DUSP2 behaves differently from other MKP family members [13] . In DUSP2 KO macrophages treated with LPS, they produced less inflammatory mediators including less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, and IL-12-producing cells, when compared to that of the wild type counterparts [13] . Indeed, the results of these published studies on DUSP2 studies are quite similar to that of our reported results here.
It is plausible that these unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 were due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . It was shown that there are interactions between JNK and ERK1/2 pathways [16] .
Here, we showed that the sustained activation of JNK blocks ERK activation ( Figure 6 ). In the DUSP2 situation, stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages shows increased phosphorylation of JNK, and inhibition of JNK by its own specific inhibitor restores phosphorylation of ERK1/2 [13] .
In the BCG-MKP-1 situation, there is an early phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Therefore, it is possible that JNK may play a role in the crosstalk interaction of MAPK. However, our preliminary data suggest that the level of phosphorylated JNK was not increased in PBMo MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection Figure 6 MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. LPS model was provided according to literature findings (Left). In this scenario, LPS activates MKP-1, which in turn dephosphorylates and deactivates phospho-p38 MAPK, resulting in less TNF-α induction. However, the situation in DHP-HSA activation of DUSP2 is more complicated (Middle), since the phosphatase activity causes subsequent inhibition of phospho-JNK which leads to the derepression of phospho-p38 MAPK. Consequently, the combined effects of this cascade results in more TNF-α expression. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 (Right) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case (Right), there was an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, and the unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation leading to more TNF-α induction. The details and kinase targets are yet to be identified. transfected with MKP-1 siRNA (data not shown). Thus, the details of the crosstalk between MAPKs need further investigation. Here, we present a model to summarize the results and to hypothesize the existence of an as yet unidentified intermediary factor or factors in the pathways downstream of MKP-1 effects in the BCG-induced signaling cascade. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 ( Figure 6 ) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case, BCG induces MKP-1 expression while also activates MAPKs including p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Downstream of MKP-1, there is an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases. The unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, which ultimately leads to more TNF-α induction ( Figure 6 ).
In summary, MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. Inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, which in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, may be used to explain the novel function of MKP-1 in enhancing MAPK activity and consequent TNF-α expression following BCG treatment ( Figure 6 ). Taken together, the role of MAPK crosstalks need further exploration. (3) TNF-α, 30 cycles (TM = 56°C), upstream, 5'-GGCTCCAGGCGGTGCTTGTTC-3', downstream, 5'-AGACGGCGATGCGGCTGATG-3'. PCR products were analyzed on a 1% agarose gel with ethidium bromide and visualized under ultraviolet light. In order to check the size of the PCR products, 1 kb Plus DNA Lad-der™ (Invitrogen, USA) was run along with the PCR products.
To perform QPCR, the levels of MKP-1, and TNF-α mRNA as well as the reference gene GAPDH (as internal control) were assayed by the gene-specific Assays-on-Demand reagent kits (Applied Biosystems, USA). All samples were run in duplicates or triplicates and with no template controls on an ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detector. The analysis method of QPCR was the comparative cycle number to threshold (C T ) method as described in user bulletin no. 2 of the ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detection System. The number of C T of the targeted genes was normalized to that of GAPDH in each sample (ΔC T ). The C T value of the treated cells was compared with that of the untreated or mock-treated cells (ΔΔCT). The relative gene expression of the targeted genes (fold induction) was calculated as 2 -ΔΔCT .
Total cellular proteins were extracted by lysing cells in lysis buffer containing 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA (pH 8.0), 1% SDS, 0.2 mg/ml PMSF, 1 μg/ml aprotinin, 1 mM sodium orthovanadate, 2 μg/ml pepstatin, 2 μg/ml leupeptin, and 50 mM sodium fluoride for 5 minutes. The homogenate was then boiled for 10 minutes and stored at -70°C until use. The concentrations of total protein in cell extracts were determined by BCA™ Protein Assay Kit (Pierce, IL, USA).
Western blot was done as described [20] . Equal amounts of protein were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE, electroblotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (Schleicher & Schuell), and followed by probing with specific antibod-ies for Actin, MKP-1 (Santa Cruz Biotech., USA), phospho-p38 MAPK, phospho-ERK1/2 (Cell Signaling, USA). After three washes, the membranes were incubated with the corresponding secondary antibodies. The bands were detected using the Enhanced Chemiluminescence System (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) as per the manufacturer's instructions.
Transfection of siRNA into human monocytes was done as described [21] . MKP-1 siRNA included (i) MKP1-HSS102982, AAACGCUUCGUAUCCUCCUUUGAGG; (ii) MKP1-HSS102983, UUAUGCCCAAGGCAUCCAG-CAUGUC; and (iii) MKP1-HSS102984, UGAUG-GAGUCUAUGAAGUCAAUGGC. MKP-1 knockdown in PBMo was conducted by using MKP1-HSS102983 only or a pool of the above three different MKP-1 Stealth™ Select RNAi (ratio = 1:1:1, 200 nM, Invitrogen, USA). Stealth™ RNAi Negative Control Duplex (200 nM) was used as a control for sequence independent effects for the siRNA transfection. Transfection of monocytes was done by using jetPEI™ DNA transfection reagent (Polyplus Transfection, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After transfecting the cells for 24 h, the transfectants were treated with different inducers as described above.
Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t test. Differences were considered statistically significant when p values were less than 0.05. | What is critical to the development of a protective granuloma in tuberculosis infections? | {
"answer_start": [
511
],
"text": [
"tumor necrosis factor-α"
]
} | false |
888 | A novel anti-mycobacterial function of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804704/
SHA: f6ed1f1e9999e57793addb1c9c54f61c7861a995
Authors: Cheung, Benny KW; Yim, Howard CH; Lee, Norris CM; Lau, Allan SY
Date: 2009-12-17
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2172-10-64
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. To combat against this pathogen, immune cells release cytokines including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which is pivotal in the development of protective granulomas. Our previous results showed that Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG), a mycobacterium used as a model to investigate the immune response against MTB, stimulates the induction of TNF-α via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) in human blood monocytes. Since MAPK phosphatase-1 (MKP-1) is known to regulate MAPK activities, we examined whether MKP-1 plays a role in BCG-induced MAPK activation and cytokine expression. RESULTS: Primary human blood monocytes were treated with BCG and assayed for MKP-1 expression. Our results demonstrated that following exposure to BCG, there was an increase in the expression of MKP-1. Additionally, the induction of MKP-1 was regulated by p38 MAPK and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2). Surprisingly, when MKP-1 expression was blocked by its specific siRNA, there was a significant decrease in the levels of phospho-MAPK (p38 MAPK and ERK1/2) and TNF-α inducible by BCG. CONCLUSIONS: Since TNF-α is pivotal in granuloma formation, the results indicated an unexpected positive function of MKP-1 against mycobacterial infection as opposed to its usual phosphatase activity.
Text: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world, especially in the developing countries [1] . The disease is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and approximately one third of the world's population has been infected by this pathogen. In a recent report, World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that there are 9.2 million new TB cases around the world in 2006 [1] .
In response to MTB infection, induction of cytokines by immune cells is an important defense mechanism. The infected macrophages secrete intercellular signaling factors, proinflammatory cytokines, to mediate the inflammatory response leading to the formation of granuloma and induction of T-cell mediated immunity [2] . In order to understand TB pathogenesis, signaling pathways induced by mycobacteria have long been a subject of interest. Mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPKs) including extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), p38 MAPK, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) have been implicated as important cellular signaling molecules activated by mycobacteria [3] . Previous reports have shown that p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 are required in the induction of TNF-α expression in human monocytes infected with M. tuberculosis H37Rv [4] . We have further revealed the significant role of MAPKs in the signal transduction events of mycobacterial activation of primary human blood monocytes (PBMo) leading to cytokine expressions via the interaction with PKR [5] . However, the subsequent events as to how MAPK is regulated and how such regulation affects cytokine production in response to mycobacteria remain to be elucidated.
Since MAPKs are activated by phosphorylation, dephosphorylation of MAPKs seems to be an efficient process to inactivate their activities. It can be achieved by specific protein kinase phosphatases which can remove the phosphate group from MAPKs. Examples of these phosphatases include tyrosine phosphatases, serine/threonine phosphatases, and dual-specificity phosphatases (DUSPs). Some DUSPs are also known as MAPK phosphatases (MKPs) [6] [7] [8] . Currently, there are at least 10 MKPs identified, while MKP-1 is the most studied member of the family. The regulatory role of MKP-1 on cytokine induction is best demonstrated by MKP-1 knockout (KO) macrophages in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria. MKP-1 KO macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α in response to LPS treatment [9] . Consistent with these results, another group further revealed that LPS-treated MKP-1 KO bone marrow-derived macrophages show increased AP-1 DNA-binding activity [10] . Also, they showed that LPS-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88) and TIR domain-containing adaptor inducing IFN-β (TRIF) [10] , thus demonstrating the role of MKP-1 in signal transduction.
Not only LPS, other TLR inducers including CpG, peptidoglycan, poly IC, and Pam 3 Cys can regulate cytokine expressions including TNF-α, IL-10 via MKP-1 activities [10, 11] . In these processes, MKP-1 serves to mitigate the undesirable effects of septic shock and maintain organ functions by restraining the inflammatory responses following bacterial infection. Another example of MKP-1 function is the immune response to Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a Gram positive bacteria. There are higher levels of cytokine production including TNF-α, IL-6, and MIP-1α in MKP-1 KO mice infected with S. aureus [12] . Also, the mice would have a rapid development of multiorgan dysfunction as well as faster mortality rate upon challenge with heat-killed S. aureus [12] . Taken together, these results suggest that MKP-1 protects the host from overactivation of the immune system in response to Gram negative or Gram positive bacteria.
In the past, it was believed that different MKP/DUSP family members have overlapping functions. However, the emergence of DUSP2 turned the concept up side down [13] . It was shown that DUSP2 behaves differently and is opposite to the function as stated above. In DUSP2 KO cells, they produced less inflammatory mediators, implying that DUSP2 may play a role in mediating instead of limiting inflammation. For instances, when DUSP2 KO macrophages were treated with LPS, there were less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, IL-12-producing cells when compared to those of the wild type counterparts [13] . When the DUSP2 KO bone marrow-derived mast cells were first sensitized with immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor (FcεRI) and then stimulated with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen, they produced lower TNF mRNA levels, diminished IL-6 production, less phosphorylation of ERK1/2, p38 MAPK, and less transcriptional activities by Elk1 and NFAT-AP-1 [13] .
These unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 have been hypothesized to be due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . Stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages showed increases in phosphorylation of JNK. Moreover, inhibition of JNK by small molecule inhibitors showed increases in phosphorylation of ERK [13] . The authors also showed that there were physical interactions of DUSP2 with ERK2, DUSP2 with JNK2, as well as DUSP2 and p38 MAPK after stimulation of the cells with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen. Nevertheless, the details of the crosstalks between MAPKs and phosphatases need further investigation. Thus, the MKP family plays a critical role in the regulation of immune responses.
Innate immune response protects the host from MTB infection by secretion of cytokines including TNF-α in immune cells. Meanwhile, MAPK is one of the critical proteins in the regulation of immunity and cytokine expression. Since MAPK is regulated by MKP-1 in response to LPS and the activation of MAPK is important in BCGinduced cytokine expression, we hypothesize that MKP-1 plays a critical role in the immune regulation of BCG in human monocytes. We examined the involvement of MKP-1 in BCG-induced MAPK activation and its consequent cytokine expression. Here, we present evidences that MKP-1 plays an unexpected role in the regulation of cytokine induction by BCG through its control of MAPK phosphorylation.
It has been reported that many inducers including growth factors, LPS, peptidoglycan, and dexamethasone can stimulate the expression of MKP-1 in human macrophages, microglia, mast cells or fibroblasts [6] . To investigate the role of different TLR inducers in MKP-1 induction process in human blood monocytes, the level of MKP-1 mRNA was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) method. PBMo were isolated from primary human blood mononuclear cells and stimulated with Pam 3 Cys (TLR2 agonist), poly IC (TLR3 agonist), or LPS (TLR4 agonist) for 1 and 3 hours. Following exposure to Pam 3 Cys or LPS, there were significant inductions of MKP-1 mRNA levels within 1 hour of treatment ( Figure 1A ). These effects on MKP-1 induction continued for 3 hours post-treatment with Pam 3 Cys ( Figure 1A ). In contrast, poly IC did not induce MKP-1 ( Figure 1A ). The results indicate that different inducers showed differential up-regulation of MKP-1 expression.
LPS has been extensively used to demonstrate the role of MKP-1 in immune response both in vivo and in vitro [9, 12] . To establish a foundation for interpretation of subsequent experimental results, LPS was used as a positive control for the induction of MKP-1 expression. To determine the levels of MKP-1 in response to LPS, kinetics of MKP-1 transcription were determined by QPCR. There was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA, which peaked as early as 1 hour upon LPS stimulation, and the levels gradually decreased over a course of 6 hours. These results showed that LPS induced MKP-1 expression (Figure 1B) .
Next, to demonstrate the induction of specific phosphatases by BCG, kinetics of MKP-1 expression in PBMo was studied by using QPCR during BCG treatment. Similar to the results produced by LPS, upon the addition of BCG (MOI = 1 CFU/cell), there was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA within 1 hour of BCG treatment as determined by Taqman probe specific for MKP-1 ( Figure 2A ). The effects lasted for at least 6 hours ( Figure 2A ).
To examine whether the changes of protein production were in parallel to that of the mRNA levels, the protein levels of MKP-1 were measured by Western blotting. In response to BCG, PBMo produced the MKP-1 protein as early as 30 minutes after treatment. The protein levels were maintained for 2 hours and dropped to basal levels at 3 hours ( Figure 2B ). The results demonstrated that there was MKP-1 induction in response to BCG activation in human monocytes.
It has been shown that inhibition of p38 MAPK either by specific inhibitor or siRNA reduced the expression of MKP-1 in LPS-or peptidoglycan-treated macrophages [14] . To determine the mechanisms involved in the BCGinduced MKP-1 expression, PBMo were pretreated with several inhibitors including PD98059 (inhibitor for MAP kinase kinase [MEK] or ERK1/2), SB203580 (inhibitor for p38 MAPK), SP600125 (inhibitor for JNK), and CAPE (inhibitor for NF-κB) for 1 hour. A range of concentrations of each inhibitor was used to test their optimal concentrations and effects on cell viability and kinase inhibitions. BCG was added afterwards and total RNA was harvested. The results demonstrated that, with the inhibition of ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK activities by their corresponding relatively specific inhibitors, MKP-1 expressions were significantly reduced ( Figure 3 ). In addition, using higher dose of SB203580, we showed that the inhibition is increased further (data not shown). On the contrary, pretreatment of the cells with CAPE and SP600125 did not affect the induction of MKP-1 by BCG ( Figure 3 ). These results suggest that BCG-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2.
Throughout the above experiments, the primary goal was to examine the induction of MKP-1 by BCG in human monocytes. Thus, to further examine the role of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling, transfection of siRNA into PBMo was used to knockdown the activity of MKP-1. To demonstrate that the MKP-1 siRNA can indeed knockdown the target gene, PBMo were first transfected with control or MKP-1 siRNA and then treated with BCG for 3 hours. Levels of MKP-1 mRNA were measured by RT-PCR method.
In Figure 4A , BCG stimulated MKP-1 expression (lanes 1 and 2). In MKP-1 siRNA transfected monocytes, induction of MKP-1 by BCG was significantly decreased (lanes 2 and 4). The results showed that the siRNA does abrogate the levels of MKP-1 mRNA.
To further determine whether MKP-1 siRNA affects BCGinduced MKP-1 at protein levels, PBMo were treated as above and MKP-1 proteins were measured by Western blotting. The results showed that BCG could induce MKP-1 proteins as usual for cells transfected with control siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 1-3). However, the levels of BCGinduced MKP-1 protein expression were reduced in cells transfected with MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 4-6). Together, the results suggest that MKP-1 siRNA not only reduced the MKP-1 mRNA in BCG treatment but also abrogated the BCG-induced MKP-1 protein.
As stated in the literature [9] , MKP-1 KO mice showed increased TNF-α production in response to LPS. On the basis of the above MKP-1 siRNA results, LPS was then used as a control to demonstrate the effects of this MKP-1 siRNA system. cytokine expression induced by LPS in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells suggest that the siRNA system is effective in knocking down the MKP-1 expression and MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced TNF-α expression.
To investigate the effect of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced cytokine expression, the levels of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA were measured by QPCR method. PBMo were transfected with either control or MKP-1 siRNA. Following exposure to BCG with control siRNA, there were significant inductions of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA levels for 3 hours after treatment as previously reported ( [5] and data not shown). Next, the effects of MKP-1 siRNA were examined on the cytokine expression induced by BCG. Surprisingly, there was a significant abrogation of BCGinduced TNF-α expression by MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4D ). With the knockdown of MKP-1, the level of BCG-induced TNF-α was only 60% compared to that of the control cells, while BCG-induced IL-6 and IL-10 were unchanged in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells. The results revealed that MKP-1 plays a role in the induction of TNF-α expression upon BCG stimulation, which may be different from that of its conventional functions in which MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced signaling pathways [7] .
The unexpected observations in cytokine expression lead to the investigation on the effects of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced MAPK activation. MKP-1 was found to have a preferential substrate binding to p38 MAPK and JNK than ERK1/2 [7] . The phosphorylation status of MAPKs was assessed in control or MKP-1 siRNA transfected PBMo. Western blotting results demonstrated that BCGinduced both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 phosphorylation in 15 minutes (data not shown) and peaked at 30 minutes, and then returned to basal levels in cells treated with the control siRNA ( Figure 5 ). Similar to the results of cytokine expression, phosphorylation of both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 in response to BCG was decreased in monocytes transfected with MKP-1 siRNA instead of the expected increase in phosphorylation ( Figure 5 ). The results suggest that MKP-1 knockdown would result in reduced MAPK phosphorylation by BCG, implying that the reduced level of TNF-α production in BCG stimulated monocytes is due to reduced phosphorylation of MAPKs by MKP-1 siRNA.
This report presented evidences that a novel function of MKP-1 is uncovered in cytokine regulation in response to mycobacterial infection. BCG induces MKP-1 as a rapid response (Figure 2) . The induction mechanism of MKP-1 by BCG is dependent on both ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK ( Figure 3 ). Using siRNA approach, the functions of MKP-1 can be examined in primary human monocytes. The results showed that the BCG-induced MAPKs activation as well as cytokine expression are downstream of MKP-1 ( Figures 4D and 5) . Thus, MKP-1 is a critical signaling molecule that is involved in BCG-induced cytokine expression.
Previous reports have shown that MKP-1 induced by LPS or peptidoglycan is dependent on p38 MAPK [14] . Accordingly, BCG-induced MKP-1 can be inhibited by both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 inhibitors. Interestingly, it has been shown that degradation of MKP-1 is reduced after ERK1/2 phosphorylation [15] . It can be hypothesized that BCG-induced MKP-1 proteins can be stabilized by ERK1/2 and the detailed mechanisms involved require more exploration. Also, since the inhibition of MKP-1 expression by both inhibitors (for p38 MAPK and ERK1/ 2) was not complete, it is believed that other proteins may be involved in the BCG-induced MKP-1 expression.
On the basis of the literature results on LPS effects ( Figure 6 ), the original expectation for this project is that MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator. LPS-stimulated MKP-1 KO peritoneal macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α [9] . In doing so, LPS-induced MKP-1 could BCG-induced MAPK phosphorylation is decreased by MKP-1 siRNA prevent prolonged TNF-α production as in sepsis which may lead to severe damage to the host. It was expected that BCG induces MKP-1 and its induction would correlate with the dephosphorylation of MAPKs including p38 MAPK. By blocking the MKP-1 using siRNA, it was expected to have increased p38 MAPK phosphorylation and prolonged TNF-α production in response to BCG. Nevertheless, our results shown here are diametrically opposite. One possibility for the unexpected results may be due to non-specific effects of transfection or siRNA. However, this was not the case since there was a prolonged and increased TNF-α expression after the MKP-1 siRNA-transfected monocytes were treated with LPS (Figure 4C ).
There is now a new hypothesis to explain such paradoxical effects of MKP-1 in TNF-α regulation in which the phosphatase plays a role in positive regulation of TNF-α production in response to BCG as in the case of DUSP2 [13] . The structures of MKP-1 and DUSP2 are similar, with which they both contain a MAPK-interacting domain and a phosphatase catalytic site. By contrast, other DUSP may have extra domains, e.g., PEST [6] . Here, we postulate that the function of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling is similar to that of the DUSP2/PAC1.
Actually, the discovery of DUSP2 has initially created some paradoxical questions. As described, DUSP2 behaves differently from other MKP family members [13] . In DUSP2 KO macrophages treated with LPS, they produced less inflammatory mediators including less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, and IL-12-producing cells, when compared to that of the wild type counterparts [13] . Indeed, the results of these published studies on DUSP2 studies are quite similar to that of our reported results here.
It is plausible that these unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 were due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . It was shown that there are interactions between JNK and ERK1/2 pathways [16] .
Here, we showed that the sustained activation of JNK blocks ERK activation ( Figure 6 ). In the DUSP2 situation, stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages shows increased phosphorylation of JNK, and inhibition of JNK by its own specific inhibitor restores phosphorylation of ERK1/2 [13] .
In the BCG-MKP-1 situation, there is an early phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Therefore, it is possible that JNK may play a role in the crosstalk interaction of MAPK. However, our preliminary data suggest that the level of phosphorylated JNK was not increased in PBMo MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection Figure 6 MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. LPS model was provided according to literature findings (Left). In this scenario, LPS activates MKP-1, which in turn dephosphorylates and deactivates phospho-p38 MAPK, resulting in less TNF-α induction. However, the situation in DHP-HSA activation of DUSP2 is more complicated (Middle), since the phosphatase activity causes subsequent inhibition of phospho-JNK which leads to the derepression of phospho-p38 MAPK. Consequently, the combined effects of this cascade results in more TNF-α expression. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 (Right) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case (Right), there was an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, and the unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation leading to more TNF-α induction. The details and kinase targets are yet to be identified. transfected with MKP-1 siRNA (data not shown). Thus, the details of the crosstalk between MAPKs need further investigation. Here, we present a model to summarize the results and to hypothesize the existence of an as yet unidentified intermediary factor or factors in the pathways downstream of MKP-1 effects in the BCG-induced signaling cascade. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 ( Figure 6 ) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case, BCG induces MKP-1 expression while also activates MAPKs including p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Downstream of MKP-1, there is an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases. The unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, which ultimately leads to more TNF-α induction ( Figure 6 ).
In summary, MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. Inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, which in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, may be used to explain the novel function of MKP-1 in enhancing MAPK activity and consequent TNF-α expression following BCG treatment ( Figure 6 ). Taken together, the role of MAPK crosstalks need further exploration. (3) TNF-α, 30 cycles (TM = 56°C), upstream, 5'-GGCTCCAGGCGGTGCTTGTTC-3', downstream, 5'-AGACGGCGATGCGGCTGATG-3'. PCR products were analyzed on a 1% agarose gel with ethidium bromide and visualized under ultraviolet light. In order to check the size of the PCR products, 1 kb Plus DNA Lad-der™ (Invitrogen, USA) was run along with the PCR products.
To perform QPCR, the levels of MKP-1, and TNF-α mRNA as well as the reference gene GAPDH (as internal control) were assayed by the gene-specific Assays-on-Demand reagent kits (Applied Biosystems, USA). All samples were run in duplicates or triplicates and with no template controls on an ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detector. The analysis method of QPCR was the comparative cycle number to threshold (C T ) method as described in user bulletin no. 2 of the ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detection System. The number of C T of the targeted genes was normalized to that of GAPDH in each sample (ΔC T ). The C T value of the treated cells was compared with that of the untreated or mock-treated cells (ΔΔCT). The relative gene expression of the targeted genes (fold induction) was calculated as 2 -ΔΔCT .
Total cellular proteins were extracted by lysing cells in lysis buffer containing 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA (pH 8.0), 1% SDS, 0.2 mg/ml PMSF, 1 μg/ml aprotinin, 1 mM sodium orthovanadate, 2 μg/ml pepstatin, 2 μg/ml leupeptin, and 50 mM sodium fluoride for 5 minutes. The homogenate was then boiled for 10 minutes and stored at -70°C until use. The concentrations of total protein in cell extracts were determined by BCA™ Protein Assay Kit (Pierce, IL, USA).
Western blot was done as described [20] . Equal amounts of protein were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE, electroblotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (Schleicher & Schuell), and followed by probing with specific antibod-ies for Actin, MKP-1 (Santa Cruz Biotech., USA), phospho-p38 MAPK, phospho-ERK1/2 (Cell Signaling, USA). After three washes, the membranes were incubated with the corresponding secondary antibodies. The bands were detected using the Enhanced Chemiluminescence System (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) as per the manufacturer's instructions.
Transfection of siRNA into human monocytes was done as described [21] . MKP-1 siRNA included (i) MKP1-HSS102982, AAACGCUUCGUAUCCUCCUUUGAGG; (ii) MKP1-HSS102983, UUAUGCCCAAGGCAUCCAG-CAUGUC; and (iii) MKP1-HSS102984, UGAUG-GAGUCUAUGAAGUCAAUGGC. MKP-1 knockdown in PBMo was conducted by using MKP1-HSS102983 only or a pool of the above three different MKP-1 Stealth™ Select RNAi (ratio = 1:1:1, 200 nM, Invitrogen, USA). Stealth™ RNAi Negative Control Duplex (200 nM) was used as a control for sequence independent effects for the siRNA transfection. Transfection of monocytes was done by using jetPEI™ DNA transfection reagent (Polyplus Transfection, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After transfecting the cells for 24 h, the transfectants were treated with different inducers as described above.
Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t test. Differences were considered statistically significant when p values were less than 0.05. | What is tumor necrosis factor-alpha? | {
"answer_start": [
491
],
"text": [
"cytokines"
]
} | false |
889 | A novel anti-mycobacterial function of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804704/
SHA: f6ed1f1e9999e57793addb1c9c54f61c7861a995
Authors: Cheung, Benny KW; Yim, Howard CH; Lee, Norris CM; Lau, Allan SY
Date: 2009-12-17
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2172-10-64
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. To combat against this pathogen, immune cells release cytokines including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which is pivotal in the development of protective granulomas. Our previous results showed that Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG), a mycobacterium used as a model to investigate the immune response against MTB, stimulates the induction of TNF-α via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) in human blood monocytes. Since MAPK phosphatase-1 (MKP-1) is known to regulate MAPK activities, we examined whether MKP-1 plays a role in BCG-induced MAPK activation and cytokine expression. RESULTS: Primary human blood monocytes were treated with BCG and assayed for MKP-1 expression. Our results demonstrated that following exposure to BCG, there was an increase in the expression of MKP-1. Additionally, the induction of MKP-1 was regulated by p38 MAPK and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2). Surprisingly, when MKP-1 expression was blocked by its specific siRNA, there was a significant decrease in the levels of phospho-MAPK (p38 MAPK and ERK1/2) and TNF-α inducible by BCG. CONCLUSIONS: Since TNF-α is pivotal in granuloma formation, the results indicated an unexpected positive function of MKP-1 against mycobacterial infection as opposed to its usual phosphatase activity.
Text: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world, especially in the developing countries [1] . The disease is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and approximately one third of the world's population has been infected by this pathogen. In a recent report, World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that there are 9.2 million new TB cases around the world in 2006 [1] .
In response to MTB infection, induction of cytokines by immune cells is an important defense mechanism. The infected macrophages secrete intercellular signaling factors, proinflammatory cytokines, to mediate the inflammatory response leading to the formation of granuloma and induction of T-cell mediated immunity [2] . In order to understand TB pathogenesis, signaling pathways induced by mycobacteria have long been a subject of interest. Mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPKs) including extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), p38 MAPK, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) have been implicated as important cellular signaling molecules activated by mycobacteria [3] . Previous reports have shown that p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 are required in the induction of TNF-α expression in human monocytes infected with M. tuberculosis H37Rv [4] . We have further revealed the significant role of MAPKs in the signal transduction events of mycobacterial activation of primary human blood monocytes (PBMo) leading to cytokine expressions via the interaction with PKR [5] . However, the subsequent events as to how MAPK is regulated and how such regulation affects cytokine production in response to mycobacteria remain to be elucidated.
Since MAPKs are activated by phosphorylation, dephosphorylation of MAPKs seems to be an efficient process to inactivate their activities. It can be achieved by specific protein kinase phosphatases which can remove the phosphate group from MAPKs. Examples of these phosphatases include tyrosine phosphatases, serine/threonine phosphatases, and dual-specificity phosphatases (DUSPs). Some DUSPs are also known as MAPK phosphatases (MKPs) [6] [7] [8] . Currently, there are at least 10 MKPs identified, while MKP-1 is the most studied member of the family. The regulatory role of MKP-1 on cytokine induction is best demonstrated by MKP-1 knockout (KO) macrophages in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria. MKP-1 KO macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α in response to LPS treatment [9] . Consistent with these results, another group further revealed that LPS-treated MKP-1 KO bone marrow-derived macrophages show increased AP-1 DNA-binding activity [10] . Also, they showed that LPS-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88) and TIR domain-containing adaptor inducing IFN-β (TRIF) [10] , thus demonstrating the role of MKP-1 in signal transduction.
Not only LPS, other TLR inducers including CpG, peptidoglycan, poly IC, and Pam 3 Cys can regulate cytokine expressions including TNF-α, IL-10 via MKP-1 activities [10, 11] . In these processes, MKP-1 serves to mitigate the undesirable effects of septic shock and maintain organ functions by restraining the inflammatory responses following bacterial infection. Another example of MKP-1 function is the immune response to Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a Gram positive bacteria. There are higher levels of cytokine production including TNF-α, IL-6, and MIP-1α in MKP-1 KO mice infected with S. aureus [12] . Also, the mice would have a rapid development of multiorgan dysfunction as well as faster mortality rate upon challenge with heat-killed S. aureus [12] . Taken together, these results suggest that MKP-1 protects the host from overactivation of the immune system in response to Gram negative or Gram positive bacteria.
In the past, it was believed that different MKP/DUSP family members have overlapping functions. However, the emergence of DUSP2 turned the concept up side down [13] . It was shown that DUSP2 behaves differently and is opposite to the function as stated above. In DUSP2 KO cells, they produced less inflammatory mediators, implying that DUSP2 may play a role in mediating instead of limiting inflammation. For instances, when DUSP2 KO macrophages were treated with LPS, there were less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, IL-12-producing cells when compared to those of the wild type counterparts [13] . When the DUSP2 KO bone marrow-derived mast cells were first sensitized with immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor (FcεRI) and then stimulated with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen, they produced lower TNF mRNA levels, diminished IL-6 production, less phosphorylation of ERK1/2, p38 MAPK, and less transcriptional activities by Elk1 and NFAT-AP-1 [13] .
These unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 have been hypothesized to be due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . Stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages showed increases in phosphorylation of JNK. Moreover, inhibition of JNK by small molecule inhibitors showed increases in phosphorylation of ERK [13] . The authors also showed that there were physical interactions of DUSP2 with ERK2, DUSP2 with JNK2, as well as DUSP2 and p38 MAPK after stimulation of the cells with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen. Nevertheless, the details of the crosstalks between MAPKs and phosphatases need further investigation. Thus, the MKP family plays a critical role in the regulation of immune responses.
Innate immune response protects the host from MTB infection by secretion of cytokines including TNF-α in immune cells. Meanwhile, MAPK is one of the critical proteins in the regulation of immunity and cytokine expression. Since MAPK is regulated by MKP-1 in response to LPS and the activation of MAPK is important in BCGinduced cytokine expression, we hypothesize that MKP-1 plays a critical role in the immune regulation of BCG in human monocytes. We examined the involvement of MKP-1 in BCG-induced MAPK activation and its consequent cytokine expression. Here, we present evidences that MKP-1 plays an unexpected role in the regulation of cytokine induction by BCG through its control of MAPK phosphorylation.
It has been reported that many inducers including growth factors, LPS, peptidoglycan, and dexamethasone can stimulate the expression of MKP-1 in human macrophages, microglia, mast cells or fibroblasts [6] . To investigate the role of different TLR inducers in MKP-1 induction process in human blood monocytes, the level of MKP-1 mRNA was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) method. PBMo were isolated from primary human blood mononuclear cells and stimulated with Pam 3 Cys (TLR2 agonist), poly IC (TLR3 agonist), or LPS (TLR4 agonist) for 1 and 3 hours. Following exposure to Pam 3 Cys or LPS, there were significant inductions of MKP-1 mRNA levels within 1 hour of treatment ( Figure 1A ). These effects on MKP-1 induction continued for 3 hours post-treatment with Pam 3 Cys ( Figure 1A ). In contrast, poly IC did not induce MKP-1 ( Figure 1A ). The results indicate that different inducers showed differential up-regulation of MKP-1 expression.
LPS has been extensively used to demonstrate the role of MKP-1 in immune response both in vivo and in vitro [9, 12] . To establish a foundation for interpretation of subsequent experimental results, LPS was used as a positive control for the induction of MKP-1 expression. To determine the levels of MKP-1 in response to LPS, kinetics of MKP-1 transcription were determined by QPCR. There was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA, which peaked as early as 1 hour upon LPS stimulation, and the levels gradually decreased over a course of 6 hours. These results showed that LPS induced MKP-1 expression (Figure 1B) .
Next, to demonstrate the induction of specific phosphatases by BCG, kinetics of MKP-1 expression in PBMo was studied by using QPCR during BCG treatment. Similar to the results produced by LPS, upon the addition of BCG (MOI = 1 CFU/cell), there was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA within 1 hour of BCG treatment as determined by Taqman probe specific for MKP-1 ( Figure 2A ). The effects lasted for at least 6 hours ( Figure 2A ).
To examine whether the changes of protein production were in parallel to that of the mRNA levels, the protein levels of MKP-1 were measured by Western blotting. In response to BCG, PBMo produced the MKP-1 protein as early as 30 minutes after treatment. The protein levels were maintained for 2 hours and dropped to basal levels at 3 hours ( Figure 2B ). The results demonstrated that there was MKP-1 induction in response to BCG activation in human monocytes.
It has been shown that inhibition of p38 MAPK either by specific inhibitor or siRNA reduced the expression of MKP-1 in LPS-or peptidoglycan-treated macrophages [14] . To determine the mechanisms involved in the BCGinduced MKP-1 expression, PBMo were pretreated with several inhibitors including PD98059 (inhibitor for MAP kinase kinase [MEK] or ERK1/2), SB203580 (inhibitor for p38 MAPK), SP600125 (inhibitor for JNK), and CAPE (inhibitor for NF-κB) for 1 hour. A range of concentrations of each inhibitor was used to test their optimal concentrations and effects on cell viability and kinase inhibitions. BCG was added afterwards and total RNA was harvested. The results demonstrated that, with the inhibition of ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK activities by their corresponding relatively specific inhibitors, MKP-1 expressions were significantly reduced ( Figure 3 ). In addition, using higher dose of SB203580, we showed that the inhibition is increased further (data not shown). On the contrary, pretreatment of the cells with CAPE and SP600125 did not affect the induction of MKP-1 by BCG ( Figure 3 ). These results suggest that BCG-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2.
Throughout the above experiments, the primary goal was to examine the induction of MKP-1 by BCG in human monocytes. Thus, to further examine the role of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling, transfection of siRNA into PBMo was used to knockdown the activity of MKP-1. To demonstrate that the MKP-1 siRNA can indeed knockdown the target gene, PBMo were first transfected with control or MKP-1 siRNA and then treated with BCG for 3 hours. Levels of MKP-1 mRNA were measured by RT-PCR method.
In Figure 4A , BCG stimulated MKP-1 expression (lanes 1 and 2). In MKP-1 siRNA transfected monocytes, induction of MKP-1 by BCG was significantly decreased (lanes 2 and 4). The results showed that the siRNA does abrogate the levels of MKP-1 mRNA.
To further determine whether MKP-1 siRNA affects BCGinduced MKP-1 at protein levels, PBMo were treated as above and MKP-1 proteins were measured by Western blotting. The results showed that BCG could induce MKP-1 proteins as usual for cells transfected with control siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 1-3). However, the levels of BCGinduced MKP-1 protein expression were reduced in cells transfected with MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 4-6). Together, the results suggest that MKP-1 siRNA not only reduced the MKP-1 mRNA in BCG treatment but also abrogated the BCG-induced MKP-1 protein.
As stated in the literature [9] , MKP-1 KO mice showed increased TNF-α production in response to LPS. On the basis of the above MKP-1 siRNA results, LPS was then used as a control to demonstrate the effects of this MKP-1 siRNA system. cytokine expression induced by LPS in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells suggest that the siRNA system is effective in knocking down the MKP-1 expression and MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced TNF-α expression.
To investigate the effect of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced cytokine expression, the levels of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA were measured by QPCR method. PBMo were transfected with either control or MKP-1 siRNA. Following exposure to BCG with control siRNA, there were significant inductions of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA levels for 3 hours after treatment as previously reported ( [5] and data not shown). Next, the effects of MKP-1 siRNA were examined on the cytokine expression induced by BCG. Surprisingly, there was a significant abrogation of BCGinduced TNF-α expression by MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4D ). With the knockdown of MKP-1, the level of BCG-induced TNF-α was only 60% compared to that of the control cells, while BCG-induced IL-6 and IL-10 were unchanged in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells. The results revealed that MKP-1 plays a role in the induction of TNF-α expression upon BCG stimulation, which may be different from that of its conventional functions in which MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced signaling pathways [7] .
The unexpected observations in cytokine expression lead to the investigation on the effects of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced MAPK activation. MKP-1 was found to have a preferential substrate binding to p38 MAPK and JNK than ERK1/2 [7] . The phosphorylation status of MAPKs was assessed in control or MKP-1 siRNA transfected PBMo. Western blotting results demonstrated that BCGinduced both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 phosphorylation in 15 minutes (data not shown) and peaked at 30 minutes, and then returned to basal levels in cells treated with the control siRNA ( Figure 5 ). Similar to the results of cytokine expression, phosphorylation of both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 in response to BCG was decreased in monocytes transfected with MKP-1 siRNA instead of the expected increase in phosphorylation ( Figure 5 ). The results suggest that MKP-1 knockdown would result in reduced MAPK phosphorylation by BCG, implying that the reduced level of TNF-α production in BCG stimulated monocytes is due to reduced phosphorylation of MAPKs by MKP-1 siRNA.
This report presented evidences that a novel function of MKP-1 is uncovered in cytokine regulation in response to mycobacterial infection. BCG induces MKP-1 as a rapid response (Figure 2) . The induction mechanism of MKP-1 by BCG is dependent on both ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK ( Figure 3 ). Using siRNA approach, the functions of MKP-1 can be examined in primary human monocytes. The results showed that the BCG-induced MAPKs activation as well as cytokine expression are downstream of MKP-1 ( Figures 4D and 5) . Thus, MKP-1 is a critical signaling molecule that is involved in BCG-induced cytokine expression.
Previous reports have shown that MKP-1 induced by LPS or peptidoglycan is dependent on p38 MAPK [14] . Accordingly, BCG-induced MKP-1 can be inhibited by both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 inhibitors. Interestingly, it has been shown that degradation of MKP-1 is reduced after ERK1/2 phosphorylation [15] . It can be hypothesized that BCG-induced MKP-1 proteins can be stabilized by ERK1/2 and the detailed mechanisms involved require more exploration. Also, since the inhibition of MKP-1 expression by both inhibitors (for p38 MAPK and ERK1/ 2) was not complete, it is believed that other proteins may be involved in the BCG-induced MKP-1 expression.
On the basis of the literature results on LPS effects ( Figure 6 ), the original expectation for this project is that MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator. LPS-stimulated MKP-1 KO peritoneal macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α [9] . In doing so, LPS-induced MKP-1 could BCG-induced MAPK phosphorylation is decreased by MKP-1 siRNA prevent prolonged TNF-α production as in sepsis which may lead to severe damage to the host. It was expected that BCG induces MKP-1 and its induction would correlate with the dephosphorylation of MAPKs including p38 MAPK. By blocking the MKP-1 using siRNA, it was expected to have increased p38 MAPK phosphorylation and prolonged TNF-α production in response to BCG. Nevertheless, our results shown here are diametrically opposite. One possibility for the unexpected results may be due to non-specific effects of transfection or siRNA. However, this was not the case since there was a prolonged and increased TNF-α expression after the MKP-1 siRNA-transfected monocytes were treated with LPS (Figure 4C ).
There is now a new hypothesis to explain such paradoxical effects of MKP-1 in TNF-α regulation in which the phosphatase plays a role in positive regulation of TNF-α production in response to BCG as in the case of DUSP2 [13] . The structures of MKP-1 and DUSP2 are similar, with which they both contain a MAPK-interacting domain and a phosphatase catalytic site. By contrast, other DUSP may have extra domains, e.g., PEST [6] . Here, we postulate that the function of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling is similar to that of the DUSP2/PAC1.
Actually, the discovery of DUSP2 has initially created some paradoxical questions. As described, DUSP2 behaves differently from other MKP family members [13] . In DUSP2 KO macrophages treated with LPS, they produced less inflammatory mediators including less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, and IL-12-producing cells, when compared to that of the wild type counterparts [13] . Indeed, the results of these published studies on DUSP2 studies are quite similar to that of our reported results here.
It is plausible that these unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 were due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . It was shown that there are interactions between JNK and ERK1/2 pathways [16] .
Here, we showed that the sustained activation of JNK blocks ERK activation ( Figure 6 ). In the DUSP2 situation, stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages shows increased phosphorylation of JNK, and inhibition of JNK by its own specific inhibitor restores phosphorylation of ERK1/2 [13] .
In the BCG-MKP-1 situation, there is an early phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Therefore, it is possible that JNK may play a role in the crosstalk interaction of MAPK. However, our preliminary data suggest that the level of phosphorylated JNK was not increased in PBMo MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection Figure 6 MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. LPS model was provided according to literature findings (Left). In this scenario, LPS activates MKP-1, which in turn dephosphorylates and deactivates phospho-p38 MAPK, resulting in less TNF-α induction. However, the situation in DHP-HSA activation of DUSP2 is more complicated (Middle), since the phosphatase activity causes subsequent inhibition of phospho-JNK which leads to the derepression of phospho-p38 MAPK. Consequently, the combined effects of this cascade results in more TNF-α expression. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 (Right) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case (Right), there was an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, and the unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation leading to more TNF-α induction. The details and kinase targets are yet to be identified. transfected with MKP-1 siRNA (data not shown). Thus, the details of the crosstalk between MAPKs need further investigation. Here, we present a model to summarize the results and to hypothesize the existence of an as yet unidentified intermediary factor or factors in the pathways downstream of MKP-1 effects in the BCG-induced signaling cascade. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 ( Figure 6 ) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case, BCG induces MKP-1 expression while also activates MAPKs including p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Downstream of MKP-1, there is an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases. The unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, which ultimately leads to more TNF-α induction ( Figure 6 ).
In summary, MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. Inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, which in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, may be used to explain the novel function of MKP-1 in enhancing MAPK activity and consequent TNF-α expression following BCG treatment ( Figure 6 ). Taken together, the role of MAPK crosstalks need further exploration. (3) TNF-α, 30 cycles (TM = 56°C), upstream, 5'-GGCTCCAGGCGGTGCTTGTTC-3', downstream, 5'-AGACGGCGATGCGGCTGATG-3'. PCR products were analyzed on a 1% agarose gel with ethidium bromide and visualized under ultraviolet light. In order to check the size of the PCR products, 1 kb Plus DNA Lad-der™ (Invitrogen, USA) was run along with the PCR products.
To perform QPCR, the levels of MKP-1, and TNF-α mRNA as well as the reference gene GAPDH (as internal control) were assayed by the gene-specific Assays-on-Demand reagent kits (Applied Biosystems, USA). All samples were run in duplicates or triplicates and with no template controls on an ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detector. The analysis method of QPCR was the comparative cycle number to threshold (C T ) method as described in user bulletin no. 2 of the ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detection System. The number of C T of the targeted genes was normalized to that of GAPDH in each sample (ΔC T ). The C T value of the treated cells was compared with that of the untreated or mock-treated cells (ΔΔCT). The relative gene expression of the targeted genes (fold induction) was calculated as 2 -ΔΔCT .
Total cellular proteins were extracted by lysing cells in lysis buffer containing 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA (pH 8.0), 1% SDS, 0.2 mg/ml PMSF, 1 μg/ml aprotinin, 1 mM sodium orthovanadate, 2 μg/ml pepstatin, 2 μg/ml leupeptin, and 50 mM sodium fluoride for 5 minutes. The homogenate was then boiled for 10 minutes and stored at -70°C until use. The concentrations of total protein in cell extracts were determined by BCA™ Protein Assay Kit (Pierce, IL, USA).
Western blot was done as described [20] . Equal amounts of protein were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE, electroblotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (Schleicher & Schuell), and followed by probing with specific antibod-ies for Actin, MKP-1 (Santa Cruz Biotech., USA), phospho-p38 MAPK, phospho-ERK1/2 (Cell Signaling, USA). After three washes, the membranes were incubated with the corresponding secondary antibodies. The bands were detected using the Enhanced Chemiluminescence System (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) as per the manufacturer's instructions.
Transfection of siRNA into human monocytes was done as described [21] . MKP-1 siRNA included (i) MKP1-HSS102982, AAACGCUUCGUAUCCUCCUUUGAGG; (ii) MKP1-HSS102983, UUAUGCCCAAGGCAUCCAG-CAUGUC; and (iii) MKP1-HSS102984, UGAUG-GAGUCUAUGAAGUCAAUGGC. MKP-1 knockdown in PBMo was conducted by using MKP1-HSS102983 only or a pool of the above three different MKP-1 Stealth™ Select RNAi (ratio = 1:1:1, 200 nM, Invitrogen, USA). Stealth™ RNAi Negative Control Duplex (200 nM) was used as a control for sequence independent effects for the siRNA transfection. Transfection of monocytes was done by using jetPEI™ DNA transfection reagent (Polyplus Transfection, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After transfecting the cells for 24 h, the transfectants were treated with different inducers as described above.
Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t test. Differences were considered statistically significant when p values were less than 0.05. | What regulates the activity of MAPK activity? | {
"answer_start": [
861
],
"text": [
"MAPK phosphatase-1"
]
} | false |
890 | A novel anti-mycobacterial function of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804704/
SHA: f6ed1f1e9999e57793addb1c9c54f61c7861a995
Authors: Cheung, Benny KW; Yim, Howard CH; Lee, Norris CM; Lau, Allan SY
Date: 2009-12-17
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2172-10-64
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. To combat against this pathogen, immune cells release cytokines including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which is pivotal in the development of protective granulomas. Our previous results showed that Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG), a mycobacterium used as a model to investigate the immune response against MTB, stimulates the induction of TNF-α via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) in human blood monocytes. Since MAPK phosphatase-1 (MKP-1) is known to regulate MAPK activities, we examined whether MKP-1 plays a role in BCG-induced MAPK activation and cytokine expression. RESULTS: Primary human blood monocytes were treated with BCG and assayed for MKP-1 expression. Our results demonstrated that following exposure to BCG, there was an increase in the expression of MKP-1. Additionally, the induction of MKP-1 was regulated by p38 MAPK and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2). Surprisingly, when MKP-1 expression was blocked by its specific siRNA, there was a significant decrease in the levels of phospho-MAPK (p38 MAPK and ERK1/2) and TNF-α inducible by BCG. CONCLUSIONS: Since TNF-α is pivotal in granuloma formation, the results indicated an unexpected positive function of MKP-1 against mycobacterial infection as opposed to its usual phosphatase activity.
Text: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world, especially in the developing countries [1] . The disease is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and approximately one third of the world's population has been infected by this pathogen. In a recent report, World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that there are 9.2 million new TB cases around the world in 2006 [1] .
In response to MTB infection, induction of cytokines by immune cells is an important defense mechanism. The infected macrophages secrete intercellular signaling factors, proinflammatory cytokines, to mediate the inflammatory response leading to the formation of granuloma and induction of T-cell mediated immunity [2] . In order to understand TB pathogenesis, signaling pathways induced by mycobacteria have long been a subject of interest. Mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPKs) including extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), p38 MAPK, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) have been implicated as important cellular signaling molecules activated by mycobacteria [3] . Previous reports have shown that p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 are required in the induction of TNF-α expression in human monocytes infected with M. tuberculosis H37Rv [4] . We have further revealed the significant role of MAPKs in the signal transduction events of mycobacterial activation of primary human blood monocytes (PBMo) leading to cytokine expressions via the interaction with PKR [5] . However, the subsequent events as to how MAPK is regulated and how such regulation affects cytokine production in response to mycobacteria remain to be elucidated.
Since MAPKs are activated by phosphorylation, dephosphorylation of MAPKs seems to be an efficient process to inactivate their activities. It can be achieved by specific protein kinase phosphatases which can remove the phosphate group from MAPKs. Examples of these phosphatases include tyrosine phosphatases, serine/threonine phosphatases, and dual-specificity phosphatases (DUSPs). Some DUSPs are also known as MAPK phosphatases (MKPs) [6] [7] [8] . Currently, there are at least 10 MKPs identified, while MKP-1 is the most studied member of the family. The regulatory role of MKP-1 on cytokine induction is best demonstrated by MKP-1 knockout (KO) macrophages in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria. MKP-1 KO macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α in response to LPS treatment [9] . Consistent with these results, another group further revealed that LPS-treated MKP-1 KO bone marrow-derived macrophages show increased AP-1 DNA-binding activity [10] . Also, they showed that LPS-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88) and TIR domain-containing adaptor inducing IFN-β (TRIF) [10] , thus demonstrating the role of MKP-1 in signal transduction.
Not only LPS, other TLR inducers including CpG, peptidoglycan, poly IC, and Pam 3 Cys can regulate cytokine expressions including TNF-α, IL-10 via MKP-1 activities [10, 11] . In these processes, MKP-1 serves to mitigate the undesirable effects of septic shock and maintain organ functions by restraining the inflammatory responses following bacterial infection. Another example of MKP-1 function is the immune response to Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a Gram positive bacteria. There are higher levels of cytokine production including TNF-α, IL-6, and MIP-1α in MKP-1 KO mice infected with S. aureus [12] . Also, the mice would have a rapid development of multiorgan dysfunction as well as faster mortality rate upon challenge with heat-killed S. aureus [12] . Taken together, these results suggest that MKP-1 protects the host from overactivation of the immune system in response to Gram negative or Gram positive bacteria.
In the past, it was believed that different MKP/DUSP family members have overlapping functions. However, the emergence of DUSP2 turned the concept up side down [13] . It was shown that DUSP2 behaves differently and is opposite to the function as stated above. In DUSP2 KO cells, they produced less inflammatory mediators, implying that DUSP2 may play a role in mediating instead of limiting inflammation. For instances, when DUSP2 KO macrophages were treated with LPS, there were less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, IL-12-producing cells when compared to those of the wild type counterparts [13] . When the DUSP2 KO bone marrow-derived mast cells were first sensitized with immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor (FcεRI) and then stimulated with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen, they produced lower TNF mRNA levels, diminished IL-6 production, less phosphorylation of ERK1/2, p38 MAPK, and less transcriptional activities by Elk1 and NFAT-AP-1 [13] .
These unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 have been hypothesized to be due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . Stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages showed increases in phosphorylation of JNK. Moreover, inhibition of JNK by small molecule inhibitors showed increases in phosphorylation of ERK [13] . The authors also showed that there were physical interactions of DUSP2 with ERK2, DUSP2 with JNK2, as well as DUSP2 and p38 MAPK after stimulation of the cells with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen. Nevertheless, the details of the crosstalks between MAPKs and phosphatases need further investigation. Thus, the MKP family plays a critical role in the regulation of immune responses.
Innate immune response protects the host from MTB infection by secretion of cytokines including TNF-α in immune cells. Meanwhile, MAPK is one of the critical proteins in the regulation of immunity and cytokine expression. Since MAPK is regulated by MKP-1 in response to LPS and the activation of MAPK is important in BCGinduced cytokine expression, we hypothesize that MKP-1 plays a critical role in the immune regulation of BCG in human monocytes. We examined the involvement of MKP-1 in BCG-induced MAPK activation and its consequent cytokine expression. Here, we present evidences that MKP-1 plays an unexpected role in the regulation of cytokine induction by BCG through its control of MAPK phosphorylation.
It has been reported that many inducers including growth factors, LPS, peptidoglycan, and dexamethasone can stimulate the expression of MKP-1 in human macrophages, microglia, mast cells or fibroblasts [6] . To investigate the role of different TLR inducers in MKP-1 induction process in human blood monocytes, the level of MKP-1 mRNA was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) method. PBMo were isolated from primary human blood mononuclear cells and stimulated with Pam 3 Cys (TLR2 agonist), poly IC (TLR3 agonist), or LPS (TLR4 agonist) for 1 and 3 hours. Following exposure to Pam 3 Cys or LPS, there were significant inductions of MKP-1 mRNA levels within 1 hour of treatment ( Figure 1A ). These effects on MKP-1 induction continued for 3 hours post-treatment with Pam 3 Cys ( Figure 1A ). In contrast, poly IC did not induce MKP-1 ( Figure 1A ). The results indicate that different inducers showed differential up-regulation of MKP-1 expression.
LPS has been extensively used to demonstrate the role of MKP-1 in immune response both in vivo and in vitro [9, 12] . To establish a foundation for interpretation of subsequent experimental results, LPS was used as a positive control for the induction of MKP-1 expression. To determine the levels of MKP-1 in response to LPS, kinetics of MKP-1 transcription were determined by QPCR. There was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA, which peaked as early as 1 hour upon LPS stimulation, and the levels gradually decreased over a course of 6 hours. These results showed that LPS induced MKP-1 expression (Figure 1B) .
Next, to demonstrate the induction of specific phosphatases by BCG, kinetics of MKP-1 expression in PBMo was studied by using QPCR during BCG treatment. Similar to the results produced by LPS, upon the addition of BCG (MOI = 1 CFU/cell), there was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA within 1 hour of BCG treatment as determined by Taqman probe specific for MKP-1 ( Figure 2A ). The effects lasted for at least 6 hours ( Figure 2A ).
To examine whether the changes of protein production were in parallel to that of the mRNA levels, the protein levels of MKP-1 were measured by Western blotting. In response to BCG, PBMo produced the MKP-1 protein as early as 30 minutes after treatment. The protein levels were maintained for 2 hours and dropped to basal levels at 3 hours ( Figure 2B ). The results demonstrated that there was MKP-1 induction in response to BCG activation in human monocytes.
It has been shown that inhibition of p38 MAPK either by specific inhibitor or siRNA reduced the expression of MKP-1 in LPS-or peptidoglycan-treated macrophages [14] . To determine the mechanisms involved in the BCGinduced MKP-1 expression, PBMo were pretreated with several inhibitors including PD98059 (inhibitor for MAP kinase kinase [MEK] or ERK1/2), SB203580 (inhibitor for p38 MAPK), SP600125 (inhibitor for JNK), and CAPE (inhibitor for NF-κB) for 1 hour. A range of concentrations of each inhibitor was used to test their optimal concentrations and effects on cell viability and kinase inhibitions. BCG was added afterwards and total RNA was harvested. The results demonstrated that, with the inhibition of ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK activities by their corresponding relatively specific inhibitors, MKP-1 expressions were significantly reduced ( Figure 3 ). In addition, using higher dose of SB203580, we showed that the inhibition is increased further (data not shown). On the contrary, pretreatment of the cells with CAPE and SP600125 did not affect the induction of MKP-1 by BCG ( Figure 3 ). These results suggest that BCG-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2.
Throughout the above experiments, the primary goal was to examine the induction of MKP-1 by BCG in human monocytes. Thus, to further examine the role of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling, transfection of siRNA into PBMo was used to knockdown the activity of MKP-1. To demonstrate that the MKP-1 siRNA can indeed knockdown the target gene, PBMo were first transfected with control or MKP-1 siRNA and then treated with BCG for 3 hours. Levels of MKP-1 mRNA were measured by RT-PCR method.
In Figure 4A , BCG stimulated MKP-1 expression (lanes 1 and 2). In MKP-1 siRNA transfected monocytes, induction of MKP-1 by BCG was significantly decreased (lanes 2 and 4). The results showed that the siRNA does abrogate the levels of MKP-1 mRNA.
To further determine whether MKP-1 siRNA affects BCGinduced MKP-1 at protein levels, PBMo were treated as above and MKP-1 proteins were measured by Western blotting. The results showed that BCG could induce MKP-1 proteins as usual for cells transfected with control siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 1-3). However, the levels of BCGinduced MKP-1 protein expression were reduced in cells transfected with MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 4-6). Together, the results suggest that MKP-1 siRNA not only reduced the MKP-1 mRNA in BCG treatment but also abrogated the BCG-induced MKP-1 protein.
As stated in the literature [9] , MKP-1 KO mice showed increased TNF-α production in response to LPS. On the basis of the above MKP-1 siRNA results, LPS was then used as a control to demonstrate the effects of this MKP-1 siRNA system. cytokine expression induced by LPS in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells suggest that the siRNA system is effective in knocking down the MKP-1 expression and MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced TNF-α expression.
To investigate the effect of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced cytokine expression, the levels of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA were measured by QPCR method. PBMo were transfected with either control or MKP-1 siRNA. Following exposure to BCG with control siRNA, there were significant inductions of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA levels for 3 hours after treatment as previously reported ( [5] and data not shown). Next, the effects of MKP-1 siRNA were examined on the cytokine expression induced by BCG. Surprisingly, there was a significant abrogation of BCGinduced TNF-α expression by MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4D ). With the knockdown of MKP-1, the level of BCG-induced TNF-α was only 60% compared to that of the control cells, while BCG-induced IL-6 and IL-10 were unchanged in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells. The results revealed that MKP-1 plays a role in the induction of TNF-α expression upon BCG stimulation, which may be different from that of its conventional functions in which MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced signaling pathways [7] .
The unexpected observations in cytokine expression lead to the investigation on the effects of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced MAPK activation. MKP-1 was found to have a preferential substrate binding to p38 MAPK and JNK than ERK1/2 [7] . The phosphorylation status of MAPKs was assessed in control or MKP-1 siRNA transfected PBMo. Western blotting results demonstrated that BCGinduced both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 phosphorylation in 15 minutes (data not shown) and peaked at 30 minutes, and then returned to basal levels in cells treated with the control siRNA ( Figure 5 ). Similar to the results of cytokine expression, phosphorylation of both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 in response to BCG was decreased in monocytes transfected with MKP-1 siRNA instead of the expected increase in phosphorylation ( Figure 5 ). The results suggest that MKP-1 knockdown would result in reduced MAPK phosphorylation by BCG, implying that the reduced level of TNF-α production in BCG stimulated monocytes is due to reduced phosphorylation of MAPKs by MKP-1 siRNA.
This report presented evidences that a novel function of MKP-1 is uncovered in cytokine regulation in response to mycobacterial infection. BCG induces MKP-1 as a rapid response (Figure 2) . The induction mechanism of MKP-1 by BCG is dependent on both ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK ( Figure 3 ). Using siRNA approach, the functions of MKP-1 can be examined in primary human monocytes. The results showed that the BCG-induced MAPKs activation as well as cytokine expression are downstream of MKP-1 ( Figures 4D and 5) . Thus, MKP-1 is a critical signaling molecule that is involved in BCG-induced cytokine expression.
Previous reports have shown that MKP-1 induced by LPS or peptidoglycan is dependent on p38 MAPK [14] . Accordingly, BCG-induced MKP-1 can be inhibited by both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 inhibitors. Interestingly, it has been shown that degradation of MKP-1 is reduced after ERK1/2 phosphorylation [15] . It can be hypothesized that BCG-induced MKP-1 proteins can be stabilized by ERK1/2 and the detailed mechanisms involved require more exploration. Also, since the inhibition of MKP-1 expression by both inhibitors (for p38 MAPK and ERK1/ 2) was not complete, it is believed that other proteins may be involved in the BCG-induced MKP-1 expression.
On the basis of the literature results on LPS effects ( Figure 6 ), the original expectation for this project is that MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator. LPS-stimulated MKP-1 KO peritoneal macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α [9] . In doing so, LPS-induced MKP-1 could BCG-induced MAPK phosphorylation is decreased by MKP-1 siRNA prevent prolonged TNF-α production as in sepsis which may lead to severe damage to the host. It was expected that BCG induces MKP-1 and its induction would correlate with the dephosphorylation of MAPKs including p38 MAPK. By blocking the MKP-1 using siRNA, it was expected to have increased p38 MAPK phosphorylation and prolonged TNF-α production in response to BCG. Nevertheless, our results shown here are diametrically opposite. One possibility for the unexpected results may be due to non-specific effects of transfection or siRNA. However, this was not the case since there was a prolonged and increased TNF-α expression after the MKP-1 siRNA-transfected monocytes were treated with LPS (Figure 4C ).
There is now a new hypothesis to explain such paradoxical effects of MKP-1 in TNF-α regulation in which the phosphatase plays a role in positive regulation of TNF-α production in response to BCG as in the case of DUSP2 [13] . The structures of MKP-1 and DUSP2 are similar, with which they both contain a MAPK-interacting domain and a phosphatase catalytic site. By contrast, other DUSP may have extra domains, e.g., PEST [6] . Here, we postulate that the function of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling is similar to that of the DUSP2/PAC1.
Actually, the discovery of DUSP2 has initially created some paradoxical questions. As described, DUSP2 behaves differently from other MKP family members [13] . In DUSP2 KO macrophages treated with LPS, they produced less inflammatory mediators including less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, and IL-12-producing cells, when compared to that of the wild type counterparts [13] . Indeed, the results of these published studies on DUSP2 studies are quite similar to that of our reported results here.
It is plausible that these unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 were due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . It was shown that there are interactions between JNK and ERK1/2 pathways [16] .
Here, we showed that the sustained activation of JNK blocks ERK activation ( Figure 6 ). In the DUSP2 situation, stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages shows increased phosphorylation of JNK, and inhibition of JNK by its own specific inhibitor restores phosphorylation of ERK1/2 [13] .
In the BCG-MKP-1 situation, there is an early phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Therefore, it is possible that JNK may play a role in the crosstalk interaction of MAPK. However, our preliminary data suggest that the level of phosphorylated JNK was not increased in PBMo MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection Figure 6 MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. LPS model was provided according to literature findings (Left). In this scenario, LPS activates MKP-1, which in turn dephosphorylates and deactivates phospho-p38 MAPK, resulting in less TNF-α induction. However, the situation in DHP-HSA activation of DUSP2 is more complicated (Middle), since the phosphatase activity causes subsequent inhibition of phospho-JNK which leads to the derepression of phospho-p38 MAPK. Consequently, the combined effects of this cascade results in more TNF-α expression. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 (Right) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case (Right), there was an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, and the unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation leading to more TNF-α induction. The details and kinase targets are yet to be identified. transfected with MKP-1 siRNA (data not shown). Thus, the details of the crosstalk between MAPKs need further investigation. Here, we present a model to summarize the results and to hypothesize the existence of an as yet unidentified intermediary factor or factors in the pathways downstream of MKP-1 effects in the BCG-induced signaling cascade. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 ( Figure 6 ) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case, BCG induces MKP-1 expression while also activates MAPKs including p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Downstream of MKP-1, there is an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases. The unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, which ultimately leads to more TNF-α induction ( Figure 6 ).
In summary, MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. Inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, which in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, may be used to explain the novel function of MKP-1 in enhancing MAPK activity and consequent TNF-α expression following BCG treatment ( Figure 6 ). Taken together, the role of MAPK crosstalks need further exploration. (3) TNF-α, 30 cycles (TM = 56°C), upstream, 5'-GGCTCCAGGCGGTGCTTGTTC-3', downstream, 5'-AGACGGCGATGCGGCTGATG-3'. PCR products were analyzed on a 1% agarose gel with ethidium bromide and visualized under ultraviolet light. In order to check the size of the PCR products, 1 kb Plus DNA Lad-der™ (Invitrogen, USA) was run along with the PCR products.
To perform QPCR, the levels of MKP-1, and TNF-α mRNA as well as the reference gene GAPDH (as internal control) were assayed by the gene-specific Assays-on-Demand reagent kits (Applied Biosystems, USA). All samples were run in duplicates or triplicates and with no template controls on an ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detector. The analysis method of QPCR was the comparative cycle number to threshold (C T ) method as described in user bulletin no. 2 of the ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detection System. The number of C T of the targeted genes was normalized to that of GAPDH in each sample (ΔC T ). The C T value of the treated cells was compared with that of the untreated or mock-treated cells (ΔΔCT). The relative gene expression of the targeted genes (fold induction) was calculated as 2 -ΔΔCT .
Total cellular proteins were extracted by lysing cells in lysis buffer containing 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA (pH 8.0), 1% SDS, 0.2 mg/ml PMSF, 1 μg/ml aprotinin, 1 mM sodium orthovanadate, 2 μg/ml pepstatin, 2 μg/ml leupeptin, and 50 mM sodium fluoride for 5 minutes. The homogenate was then boiled for 10 minutes and stored at -70°C until use. The concentrations of total protein in cell extracts were determined by BCA™ Protein Assay Kit (Pierce, IL, USA).
Western blot was done as described [20] . Equal amounts of protein were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE, electroblotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (Schleicher & Schuell), and followed by probing with specific antibod-ies for Actin, MKP-1 (Santa Cruz Biotech., USA), phospho-p38 MAPK, phospho-ERK1/2 (Cell Signaling, USA). After three washes, the membranes were incubated with the corresponding secondary antibodies. The bands were detected using the Enhanced Chemiluminescence System (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) as per the manufacturer's instructions.
Transfection of siRNA into human monocytes was done as described [21] . MKP-1 siRNA included (i) MKP1-HSS102982, AAACGCUUCGUAUCCUCCUUUGAGG; (ii) MKP1-HSS102983, UUAUGCCCAAGGCAUCCAG-CAUGUC; and (iii) MKP1-HSS102984, UGAUG-GAGUCUAUGAAGUCAAUGGC. MKP-1 knockdown in PBMo was conducted by using MKP1-HSS102983 only or a pool of the above three different MKP-1 Stealth™ Select RNAi (ratio = 1:1:1, 200 nM, Invitrogen, USA). Stealth™ RNAi Negative Control Duplex (200 nM) was used as a control for sequence independent effects for the siRNA transfection. Transfection of monocytes was done by using jetPEI™ DNA transfection reagent (Polyplus Transfection, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After transfecting the cells for 24 h, the transfectants were treated with different inducers as described above.
Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t test. Differences were considered statistically significant when p values were less than 0.05. | What causes tuberculosis? | {
"answer_start": [
1889
],
"text": [
"Mycobacterium tuberculosis"
]
} | false |
891 | A novel anti-mycobacterial function of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804704/
SHA: f6ed1f1e9999e57793addb1c9c54f61c7861a995
Authors: Cheung, Benny KW; Yim, Howard CH; Lee, Norris CM; Lau, Allan SY
Date: 2009-12-17
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2172-10-64
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. To combat against this pathogen, immune cells release cytokines including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which is pivotal in the development of protective granulomas. Our previous results showed that Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG), a mycobacterium used as a model to investigate the immune response against MTB, stimulates the induction of TNF-α via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) in human blood monocytes. Since MAPK phosphatase-1 (MKP-1) is known to regulate MAPK activities, we examined whether MKP-1 plays a role in BCG-induced MAPK activation and cytokine expression. RESULTS: Primary human blood monocytes were treated with BCG and assayed for MKP-1 expression. Our results demonstrated that following exposure to BCG, there was an increase in the expression of MKP-1. Additionally, the induction of MKP-1 was regulated by p38 MAPK and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2). Surprisingly, when MKP-1 expression was blocked by its specific siRNA, there was a significant decrease in the levels of phospho-MAPK (p38 MAPK and ERK1/2) and TNF-α inducible by BCG. CONCLUSIONS: Since TNF-α is pivotal in granuloma formation, the results indicated an unexpected positive function of MKP-1 against mycobacterial infection as opposed to its usual phosphatase activity.
Text: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world, especially in the developing countries [1] . The disease is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and approximately one third of the world's population has been infected by this pathogen. In a recent report, World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that there are 9.2 million new TB cases around the world in 2006 [1] .
In response to MTB infection, induction of cytokines by immune cells is an important defense mechanism. The infected macrophages secrete intercellular signaling factors, proinflammatory cytokines, to mediate the inflammatory response leading to the formation of granuloma and induction of T-cell mediated immunity [2] . In order to understand TB pathogenesis, signaling pathways induced by mycobacteria have long been a subject of interest. Mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPKs) including extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), p38 MAPK, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) have been implicated as important cellular signaling molecules activated by mycobacteria [3] . Previous reports have shown that p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 are required in the induction of TNF-α expression in human monocytes infected with M. tuberculosis H37Rv [4] . We have further revealed the significant role of MAPKs in the signal transduction events of mycobacterial activation of primary human blood monocytes (PBMo) leading to cytokine expressions via the interaction with PKR [5] . However, the subsequent events as to how MAPK is regulated and how such regulation affects cytokine production in response to mycobacteria remain to be elucidated.
Since MAPKs are activated by phosphorylation, dephosphorylation of MAPKs seems to be an efficient process to inactivate their activities. It can be achieved by specific protein kinase phosphatases which can remove the phosphate group from MAPKs. Examples of these phosphatases include tyrosine phosphatases, serine/threonine phosphatases, and dual-specificity phosphatases (DUSPs). Some DUSPs are also known as MAPK phosphatases (MKPs) [6] [7] [8] . Currently, there are at least 10 MKPs identified, while MKP-1 is the most studied member of the family. The regulatory role of MKP-1 on cytokine induction is best demonstrated by MKP-1 knockout (KO) macrophages in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria. MKP-1 KO macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α in response to LPS treatment [9] . Consistent with these results, another group further revealed that LPS-treated MKP-1 KO bone marrow-derived macrophages show increased AP-1 DNA-binding activity [10] . Also, they showed that LPS-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88) and TIR domain-containing adaptor inducing IFN-β (TRIF) [10] , thus demonstrating the role of MKP-1 in signal transduction.
Not only LPS, other TLR inducers including CpG, peptidoglycan, poly IC, and Pam 3 Cys can regulate cytokine expressions including TNF-α, IL-10 via MKP-1 activities [10, 11] . In these processes, MKP-1 serves to mitigate the undesirable effects of septic shock and maintain organ functions by restraining the inflammatory responses following bacterial infection. Another example of MKP-1 function is the immune response to Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a Gram positive bacteria. There are higher levels of cytokine production including TNF-α, IL-6, and MIP-1α in MKP-1 KO mice infected with S. aureus [12] . Also, the mice would have a rapid development of multiorgan dysfunction as well as faster mortality rate upon challenge with heat-killed S. aureus [12] . Taken together, these results suggest that MKP-1 protects the host from overactivation of the immune system in response to Gram negative or Gram positive bacteria.
In the past, it was believed that different MKP/DUSP family members have overlapping functions. However, the emergence of DUSP2 turned the concept up side down [13] . It was shown that DUSP2 behaves differently and is opposite to the function as stated above. In DUSP2 KO cells, they produced less inflammatory mediators, implying that DUSP2 may play a role in mediating instead of limiting inflammation. For instances, when DUSP2 KO macrophages were treated with LPS, there were less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, IL-12-producing cells when compared to those of the wild type counterparts [13] . When the DUSP2 KO bone marrow-derived mast cells were first sensitized with immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor (FcεRI) and then stimulated with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen, they produced lower TNF mRNA levels, diminished IL-6 production, less phosphorylation of ERK1/2, p38 MAPK, and less transcriptional activities by Elk1 and NFAT-AP-1 [13] .
These unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 have been hypothesized to be due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . Stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages showed increases in phosphorylation of JNK. Moreover, inhibition of JNK by small molecule inhibitors showed increases in phosphorylation of ERK [13] . The authors also showed that there were physical interactions of DUSP2 with ERK2, DUSP2 with JNK2, as well as DUSP2 and p38 MAPK after stimulation of the cells with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen. Nevertheless, the details of the crosstalks between MAPKs and phosphatases need further investigation. Thus, the MKP family plays a critical role in the regulation of immune responses.
Innate immune response protects the host from MTB infection by secretion of cytokines including TNF-α in immune cells. Meanwhile, MAPK is one of the critical proteins in the regulation of immunity and cytokine expression. Since MAPK is regulated by MKP-1 in response to LPS and the activation of MAPK is important in BCGinduced cytokine expression, we hypothesize that MKP-1 plays a critical role in the immune regulation of BCG in human monocytes. We examined the involvement of MKP-1 in BCG-induced MAPK activation and its consequent cytokine expression. Here, we present evidences that MKP-1 plays an unexpected role in the regulation of cytokine induction by BCG through its control of MAPK phosphorylation.
It has been reported that many inducers including growth factors, LPS, peptidoglycan, and dexamethasone can stimulate the expression of MKP-1 in human macrophages, microglia, mast cells or fibroblasts [6] . To investigate the role of different TLR inducers in MKP-1 induction process in human blood monocytes, the level of MKP-1 mRNA was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) method. PBMo were isolated from primary human blood mononuclear cells and stimulated with Pam 3 Cys (TLR2 agonist), poly IC (TLR3 agonist), or LPS (TLR4 agonist) for 1 and 3 hours. Following exposure to Pam 3 Cys or LPS, there were significant inductions of MKP-1 mRNA levels within 1 hour of treatment ( Figure 1A ). These effects on MKP-1 induction continued for 3 hours post-treatment with Pam 3 Cys ( Figure 1A ). In contrast, poly IC did not induce MKP-1 ( Figure 1A ). The results indicate that different inducers showed differential up-regulation of MKP-1 expression.
LPS has been extensively used to demonstrate the role of MKP-1 in immune response both in vivo and in vitro [9, 12] . To establish a foundation for interpretation of subsequent experimental results, LPS was used as a positive control for the induction of MKP-1 expression. To determine the levels of MKP-1 in response to LPS, kinetics of MKP-1 transcription were determined by QPCR. There was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA, which peaked as early as 1 hour upon LPS stimulation, and the levels gradually decreased over a course of 6 hours. These results showed that LPS induced MKP-1 expression (Figure 1B) .
Next, to demonstrate the induction of specific phosphatases by BCG, kinetics of MKP-1 expression in PBMo was studied by using QPCR during BCG treatment. Similar to the results produced by LPS, upon the addition of BCG (MOI = 1 CFU/cell), there was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA within 1 hour of BCG treatment as determined by Taqman probe specific for MKP-1 ( Figure 2A ). The effects lasted for at least 6 hours ( Figure 2A ).
To examine whether the changes of protein production were in parallel to that of the mRNA levels, the protein levels of MKP-1 were measured by Western blotting. In response to BCG, PBMo produced the MKP-1 protein as early as 30 minutes after treatment. The protein levels were maintained for 2 hours and dropped to basal levels at 3 hours ( Figure 2B ). The results demonstrated that there was MKP-1 induction in response to BCG activation in human monocytes.
It has been shown that inhibition of p38 MAPK either by specific inhibitor or siRNA reduced the expression of MKP-1 in LPS-or peptidoglycan-treated macrophages [14] . To determine the mechanisms involved in the BCGinduced MKP-1 expression, PBMo were pretreated with several inhibitors including PD98059 (inhibitor for MAP kinase kinase [MEK] or ERK1/2), SB203580 (inhibitor for p38 MAPK), SP600125 (inhibitor for JNK), and CAPE (inhibitor for NF-κB) for 1 hour. A range of concentrations of each inhibitor was used to test their optimal concentrations and effects on cell viability and kinase inhibitions. BCG was added afterwards and total RNA was harvested. The results demonstrated that, with the inhibition of ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK activities by their corresponding relatively specific inhibitors, MKP-1 expressions were significantly reduced ( Figure 3 ). In addition, using higher dose of SB203580, we showed that the inhibition is increased further (data not shown). On the contrary, pretreatment of the cells with CAPE and SP600125 did not affect the induction of MKP-1 by BCG ( Figure 3 ). These results suggest that BCG-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2.
Throughout the above experiments, the primary goal was to examine the induction of MKP-1 by BCG in human monocytes. Thus, to further examine the role of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling, transfection of siRNA into PBMo was used to knockdown the activity of MKP-1. To demonstrate that the MKP-1 siRNA can indeed knockdown the target gene, PBMo were first transfected with control or MKP-1 siRNA and then treated with BCG for 3 hours. Levels of MKP-1 mRNA were measured by RT-PCR method.
In Figure 4A , BCG stimulated MKP-1 expression (lanes 1 and 2). In MKP-1 siRNA transfected monocytes, induction of MKP-1 by BCG was significantly decreased (lanes 2 and 4). The results showed that the siRNA does abrogate the levels of MKP-1 mRNA.
To further determine whether MKP-1 siRNA affects BCGinduced MKP-1 at protein levels, PBMo were treated as above and MKP-1 proteins were measured by Western blotting. The results showed that BCG could induce MKP-1 proteins as usual for cells transfected with control siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 1-3). However, the levels of BCGinduced MKP-1 protein expression were reduced in cells transfected with MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 4-6). Together, the results suggest that MKP-1 siRNA not only reduced the MKP-1 mRNA in BCG treatment but also abrogated the BCG-induced MKP-1 protein.
As stated in the literature [9] , MKP-1 KO mice showed increased TNF-α production in response to LPS. On the basis of the above MKP-1 siRNA results, LPS was then used as a control to demonstrate the effects of this MKP-1 siRNA system. cytokine expression induced by LPS in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells suggest that the siRNA system is effective in knocking down the MKP-1 expression and MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced TNF-α expression.
To investigate the effect of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced cytokine expression, the levels of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA were measured by QPCR method. PBMo were transfected with either control or MKP-1 siRNA. Following exposure to BCG with control siRNA, there were significant inductions of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA levels for 3 hours after treatment as previously reported ( [5] and data not shown). Next, the effects of MKP-1 siRNA were examined on the cytokine expression induced by BCG. Surprisingly, there was a significant abrogation of BCGinduced TNF-α expression by MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4D ). With the knockdown of MKP-1, the level of BCG-induced TNF-α was only 60% compared to that of the control cells, while BCG-induced IL-6 and IL-10 were unchanged in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells. The results revealed that MKP-1 plays a role in the induction of TNF-α expression upon BCG stimulation, which may be different from that of its conventional functions in which MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced signaling pathways [7] .
The unexpected observations in cytokine expression lead to the investigation on the effects of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced MAPK activation. MKP-1 was found to have a preferential substrate binding to p38 MAPK and JNK than ERK1/2 [7] . The phosphorylation status of MAPKs was assessed in control or MKP-1 siRNA transfected PBMo. Western blotting results demonstrated that BCGinduced both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 phosphorylation in 15 minutes (data not shown) and peaked at 30 minutes, and then returned to basal levels in cells treated with the control siRNA ( Figure 5 ). Similar to the results of cytokine expression, phosphorylation of both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 in response to BCG was decreased in monocytes transfected with MKP-1 siRNA instead of the expected increase in phosphorylation ( Figure 5 ). The results suggest that MKP-1 knockdown would result in reduced MAPK phosphorylation by BCG, implying that the reduced level of TNF-α production in BCG stimulated monocytes is due to reduced phosphorylation of MAPKs by MKP-1 siRNA.
This report presented evidences that a novel function of MKP-1 is uncovered in cytokine regulation in response to mycobacterial infection. BCG induces MKP-1 as a rapid response (Figure 2) . The induction mechanism of MKP-1 by BCG is dependent on both ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK ( Figure 3 ). Using siRNA approach, the functions of MKP-1 can be examined in primary human monocytes. The results showed that the BCG-induced MAPKs activation as well as cytokine expression are downstream of MKP-1 ( Figures 4D and 5) . Thus, MKP-1 is a critical signaling molecule that is involved in BCG-induced cytokine expression.
Previous reports have shown that MKP-1 induced by LPS or peptidoglycan is dependent on p38 MAPK [14] . Accordingly, BCG-induced MKP-1 can be inhibited by both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 inhibitors. Interestingly, it has been shown that degradation of MKP-1 is reduced after ERK1/2 phosphorylation [15] . It can be hypothesized that BCG-induced MKP-1 proteins can be stabilized by ERK1/2 and the detailed mechanisms involved require more exploration. Also, since the inhibition of MKP-1 expression by both inhibitors (for p38 MAPK and ERK1/ 2) was not complete, it is believed that other proteins may be involved in the BCG-induced MKP-1 expression.
On the basis of the literature results on LPS effects ( Figure 6 ), the original expectation for this project is that MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator. LPS-stimulated MKP-1 KO peritoneal macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α [9] . In doing so, LPS-induced MKP-1 could BCG-induced MAPK phosphorylation is decreased by MKP-1 siRNA prevent prolonged TNF-α production as in sepsis which may lead to severe damage to the host. It was expected that BCG induces MKP-1 and its induction would correlate with the dephosphorylation of MAPKs including p38 MAPK. By blocking the MKP-1 using siRNA, it was expected to have increased p38 MAPK phosphorylation and prolonged TNF-α production in response to BCG. Nevertheless, our results shown here are diametrically opposite. One possibility for the unexpected results may be due to non-specific effects of transfection or siRNA. However, this was not the case since there was a prolonged and increased TNF-α expression after the MKP-1 siRNA-transfected monocytes were treated with LPS (Figure 4C ).
There is now a new hypothesis to explain such paradoxical effects of MKP-1 in TNF-α regulation in which the phosphatase plays a role in positive regulation of TNF-α production in response to BCG as in the case of DUSP2 [13] . The structures of MKP-1 and DUSP2 are similar, with which they both contain a MAPK-interacting domain and a phosphatase catalytic site. By contrast, other DUSP may have extra domains, e.g., PEST [6] . Here, we postulate that the function of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling is similar to that of the DUSP2/PAC1.
Actually, the discovery of DUSP2 has initially created some paradoxical questions. As described, DUSP2 behaves differently from other MKP family members [13] . In DUSP2 KO macrophages treated with LPS, they produced less inflammatory mediators including less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, and IL-12-producing cells, when compared to that of the wild type counterparts [13] . Indeed, the results of these published studies on DUSP2 studies are quite similar to that of our reported results here.
It is plausible that these unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 were due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . It was shown that there are interactions between JNK and ERK1/2 pathways [16] .
Here, we showed that the sustained activation of JNK blocks ERK activation ( Figure 6 ). In the DUSP2 situation, stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages shows increased phosphorylation of JNK, and inhibition of JNK by its own specific inhibitor restores phosphorylation of ERK1/2 [13] .
In the BCG-MKP-1 situation, there is an early phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Therefore, it is possible that JNK may play a role in the crosstalk interaction of MAPK. However, our preliminary data suggest that the level of phosphorylated JNK was not increased in PBMo MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection Figure 6 MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. LPS model was provided according to literature findings (Left). In this scenario, LPS activates MKP-1, which in turn dephosphorylates and deactivates phospho-p38 MAPK, resulting in less TNF-α induction. However, the situation in DHP-HSA activation of DUSP2 is more complicated (Middle), since the phosphatase activity causes subsequent inhibition of phospho-JNK which leads to the derepression of phospho-p38 MAPK. Consequently, the combined effects of this cascade results in more TNF-α expression. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 (Right) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case (Right), there was an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, and the unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation leading to more TNF-α induction. The details and kinase targets are yet to be identified. transfected with MKP-1 siRNA (data not shown). Thus, the details of the crosstalk between MAPKs need further investigation. Here, we present a model to summarize the results and to hypothesize the existence of an as yet unidentified intermediary factor or factors in the pathways downstream of MKP-1 effects in the BCG-induced signaling cascade. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 ( Figure 6 ) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case, BCG induces MKP-1 expression while also activates MAPKs including p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Downstream of MKP-1, there is an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases. The unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, which ultimately leads to more TNF-α induction ( Figure 6 ).
In summary, MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. Inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, which in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, may be used to explain the novel function of MKP-1 in enhancing MAPK activity and consequent TNF-α expression following BCG treatment ( Figure 6 ). Taken together, the role of MAPK crosstalks need further exploration. (3) TNF-α, 30 cycles (TM = 56°C), upstream, 5'-GGCTCCAGGCGGTGCTTGTTC-3', downstream, 5'-AGACGGCGATGCGGCTGATG-3'. PCR products were analyzed on a 1% agarose gel with ethidium bromide and visualized under ultraviolet light. In order to check the size of the PCR products, 1 kb Plus DNA Lad-der™ (Invitrogen, USA) was run along with the PCR products.
To perform QPCR, the levels of MKP-1, and TNF-α mRNA as well as the reference gene GAPDH (as internal control) were assayed by the gene-specific Assays-on-Demand reagent kits (Applied Biosystems, USA). All samples were run in duplicates or triplicates and with no template controls on an ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detector. The analysis method of QPCR was the comparative cycle number to threshold (C T ) method as described in user bulletin no. 2 of the ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detection System. The number of C T of the targeted genes was normalized to that of GAPDH in each sample (ΔC T ). The C T value of the treated cells was compared with that of the untreated or mock-treated cells (ΔΔCT). The relative gene expression of the targeted genes (fold induction) was calculated as 2 -ΔΔCT .
Total cellular proteins were extracted by lysing cells in lysis buffer containing 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA (pH 8.0), 1% SDS, 0.2 mg/ml PMSF, 1 μg/ml aprotinin, 1 mM sodium orthovanadate, 2 μg/ml pepstatin, 2 μg/ml leupeptin, and 50 mM sodium fluoride for 5 minutes. The homogenate was then boiled for 10 minutes and stored at -70°C until use. The concentrations of total protein in cell extracts were determined by BCA™ Protein Assay Kit (Pierce, IL, USA).
Western blot was done as described [20] . Equal amounts of protein were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE, electroblotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (Schleicher & Schuell), and followed by probing with specific antibod-ies for Actin, MKP-1 (Santa Cruz Biotech., USA), phospho-p38 MAPK, phospho-ERK1/2 (Cell Signaling, USA). After three washes, the membranes were incubated with the corresponding secondary antibodies. The bands were detected using the Enhanced Chemiluminescence System (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) as per the manufacturer's instructions.
Transfection of siRNA into human monocytes was done as described [21] . MKP-1 siRNA included (i) MKP1-HSS102982, AAACGCUUCGUAUCCUCCUUUGAGG; (ii) MKP1-HSS102983, UUAUGCCCAAGGCAUCCAG-CAUGUC; and (iii) MKP1-HSS102984, UGAUG-GAGUCUAUGAAGUCAAUGGC. MKP-1 knockdown in PBMo was conducted by using MKP1-HSS102983 only or a pool of the above three different MKP-1 Stealth™ Select RNAi (ratio = 1:1:1, 200 nM, Invitrogen, USA). Stealth™ RNAi Negative Control Duplex (200 nM) was used as a control for sequence independent effects for the siRNA transfection. Transfection of monocytes was done by using jetPEI™ DNA transfection reagent (Polyplus Transfection, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After transfecting the cells for 24 h, the transfectants were treated with different inducers as described above.
Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t test. Differences were considered statistically significant when p values were less than 0.05. | What percentage of the world has been infected by tuberculosis? | {
"answer_start": [
1940
],
"text": [
"one third of the world's population"
]
} | false |
892 | A novel anti-mycobacterial function of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804704/
SHA: f6ed1f1e9999e57793addb1c9c54f61c7861a995
Authors: Cheung, Benny KW; Yim, Howard CH; Lee, Norris CM; Lau, Allan SY
Date: 2009-12-17
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2172-10-64
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. To combat against this pathogen, immune cells release cytokines including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which is pivotal in the development of protective granulomas. Our previous results showed that Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG), a mycobacterium used as a model to investigate the immune response against MTB, stimulates the induction of TNF-α via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) in human blood monocytes. Since MAPK phosphatase-1 (MKP-1) is known to regulate MAPK activities, we examined whether MKP-1 plays a role in BCG-induced MAPK activation and cytokine expression. RESULTS: Primary human blood monocytes were treated with BCG and assayed for MKP-1 expression. Our results demonstrated that following exposure to BCG, there was an increase in the expression of MKP-1. Additionally, the induction of MKP-1 was regulated by p38 MAPK and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2). Surprisingly, when MKP-1 expression was blocked by its specific siRNA, there was a significant decrease in the levels of phospho-MAPK (p38 MAPK and ERK1/2) and TNF-α inducible by BCG. CONCLUSIONS: Since TNF-α is pivotal in granuloma formation, the results indicated an unexpected positive function of MKP-1 against mycobacterial infection as opposed to its usual phosphatase activity.
Text: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world, especially in the developing countries [1] . The disease is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and approximately one third of the world's population has been infected by this pathogen. In a recent report, World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that there are 9.2 million new TB cases around the world in 2006 [1] .
In response to MTB infection, induction of cytokines by immune cells is an important defense mechanism. The infected macrophages secrete intercellular signaling factors, proinflammatory cytokines, to mediate the inflammatory response leading to the formation of granuloma and induction of T-cell mediated immunity [2] . In order to understand TB pathogenesis, signaling pathways induced by mycobacteria have long been a subject of interest. Mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPKs) including extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), p38 MAPK, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) have been implicated as important cellular signaling molecules activated by mycobacteria [3] . Previous reports have shown that p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 are required in the induction of TNF-α expression in human monocytes infected with M. tuberculosis H37Rv [4] . We have further revealed the significant role of MAPKs in the signal transduction events of mycobacterial activation of primary human blood monocytes (PBMo) leading to cytokine expressions via the interaction with PKR [5] . However, the subsequent events as to how MAPK is regulated and how such regulation affects cytokine production in response to mycobacteria remain to be elucidated.
Since MAPKs are activated by phosphorylation, dephosphorylation of MAPKs seems to be an efficient process to inactivate their activities. It can be achieved by specific protein kinase phosphatases which can remove the phosphate group from MAPKs. Examples of these phosphatases include tyrosine phosphatases, serine/threonine phosphatases, and dual-specificity phosphatases (DUSPs). Some DUSPs are also known as MAPK phosphatases (MKPs) [6] [7] [8] . Currently, there are at least 10 MKPs identified, while MKP-1 is the most studied member of the family. The regulatory role of MKP-1 on cytokine induction is best demonstrated by MKP-1 knockout (KO) macrophages in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria. MKP-1 KO macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α in response to LPS treatment [9] . Consistent with these results, another group further revealed that LPS-treated MKP-1 KO bone marrow-derived macrophages show increased AP-1 DNA-binding activity [10] . Also, they showed that LPS-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88) and TIR domain-containing adaptor inducing IFN-β (TRIF) [10] , thus demonstrating the role of MKP-1 in signal transduction.
Not only LPS, other TLR inducers including CpG, peptidoglycan, poly IC, and Pam 3 Cys can regulate cytokine expressions including TNF-α, IL-10 via MKP-1 activities [10, 11] . In these processes, MKP-1 serves to mitigate the undesirable effects of septic shock and maintain organ functions by restraining the inflammatory responses following bacterial infection. Another example of MKP-1 function is the immune response to Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a Gram positive bacteria. There are higher levels of cytokine production including TNF-α, IL-6, and MIP-1α in MKP-1 KO mice infected with S. aureus [12] . Also, the mice would have a rapid development of multiorgan dysfunction as well as faster mortality rate upon challenge with heat-killed S. aureus [12] . Taken together, these results suggest that MKP-1 protects the host from overactivation of the immune system in response to Gram negative or Gram positive bacteria.
In the past, it was believed that different MKP/DUSP family members have overlapping functions. However, the emergence of DUSP2 turned the concept up side down [13] . It was shown that DUSP2 behaves differently and is opposite to the function as stated above. In DUSP2 KO cells, they produced less inflammatory mediators, implying that DUSP2 may play a role in mediating instead of limiting inflammation. For instances, when DUSP2 KO macrophages were treated with LPS, there were less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, IL-12-producing cells when compared to those of the wild type counterparts [13] . When the DUSP2 KO bone marrow-derived mast cells were first sensitized with immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor (FcεRI) and then stimulated with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen, they produced lower TNF mRNA levels, diminished IL-6 production, less phosphorylation of ERK1/2, p38 MAPK, and less transcriptional activities by Elk1 and NFAT-AP-1 [13] .
These unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 have been hypothesized to be due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . Stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages showed increases in phosphorylation of JNK. Moreover, inhibition of JNK by small molecule inhibitors showed increases in phosphorylation of ERK [13] . The authors also showed that there were physical interactions of DUSP2 with ERK2, DUSP2 with JNK2, as well as DUSP2 and p38 MAPK after stimulation of the cells with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen. Nevertheless, the details of the crosstalks between MAPKs and phosphatases need further investigation. Thus, the MKP family plays a critical role in the regulation of immune responses.
Innate immune response protects the host from MTB infection by secretion of cytokines including TNF-α in immune cells. Meanwhile, MAPK is one of the critical proteins in the regulation of immunity and cytokine expression. Since MAPK is regulated by MKP-1 in response to LPS and the activation of MAPK is important in BCGinduced cytokine expression, we hypothesize that MKP-1 plays a critical role in the immune regulation of BCG in human monocytes. We examined the involvement of MKP-1 in BCG-induced MAPK activation and its consequent cytokine expression. Here, we present evidences that MKP-1 plays an unexpected role in the regulation of cytokine induction by BCG through its control of MAPK phosphorylation.
It has been reported that many inducers including growth factors, LPS, peptidoglycan, and dexamethasone can stimulate the expression of MKP-1 in human macrophages, microglia, mast cells or fibroblasts [6] . To investigate the role of different TLR inducers in MKP-1 induction process in human blood monocytes, the level of MKP-1 mRNA was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) method. PBMo were isolated from primary human blood mononuclear cells and stimulated with Pam 3 Cys (TLR2 agonist), poly IC (TLR3 agonist), or LPS (TLR4 agonist) for 1 and 3 hours. Following exposure to Pam 3 Cys or LPS, there were significant inductions of MKP-1 mRNA levels within 1 hour of treatment ( Figure 1A ). These effects on MKP-1 induction continued for 3 hours post-treatment with Pam 3 Cys ( Figure 1A ). In contrast, poly IC did not induce MKP-1 ( Figure 1A ). The results indicate that different inducers showed differential up-regulation of MKP-1 expression.
LPS has been extensively used to demonstrate the role of MKP-1 in immune response both in vivo and in vitro [9, 12] . To establish a foundation for interpretation of subsequent experimental results, LPS was used as a positive control for the induction of MKP-1 expression. To determine the levels of MKP-1 in response to LPS, kinetics of MKP-1 transcription were determined by QPCR. There was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA, which peaked as early as 1 hour upon LPS stimulation, and the levels gradually decreased over a course of 6 hours. These results showed that LPS induced MKP-1 expression (Figure 1B) .
Next, to demonstrate the induction of specific phosphatases by BCG, kinetics of MKP-1 expression in PBMo was studied by using QPCR during BCG treatment. Similar to the results produced by LPS, upon the addition of BCG (MOI = 1 CFU/cell), there was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA within 1 hour of BCG treatment as determined by Taqman probe specific for MKP-1 ( Figure 2A ). The effects lasted for at least 6 hours ( Figure 2A ).
To examine whether the changes of protein production were in parallel to that of the mRNA levels, the protein levels of MKP-1 were measured by Western blotting. In response to BCG, PBMo produced the MKP-1 protein as early as 30 minutes after treatment. The protein levels were maintained for 2 hours and dropped to basal levels at 3 hours ( Figure 2B ). The results demonstrated that there was MKP-1 induction in response to BCG activation in human monocytes.
It has been shown that inhibition of p38 MAPK either by specific inhibitor or siRNA reduced the expression of MKP-1 in LPS-or peptidoglycan-treated macrophages [14] . To determine the mechanisms involved in the BCGinduced MKP-1 expression, PBMo were pretreated with several inhibitors including PD98059 (inhibitor for MAP kinase kinase [MEK] or ERK1/2), SB203580 (inhibitor for p38 MAPK), SP600125 (inhibitor for JNK), and CAPE (inhibitor for NF-κB) for 1 hour. A range of concentrations of each inhibitor was used to test their optimal concentrations and effects on cell viability and kinase inhibitions. BCG was added afterwards and total RNA was harvested. The results demonstrated that, with the inhibition of ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK activities by their corresponding relatively specific inhibitors, MKP-1 expressions were significantly reduced ( Figure 3 ). In addition, using higher dose of SB203580, we showed that the inhibition is increased further (data not shown). On the contrary, pretreatment of the cells with CAPE and SP600125 did not affect the induction of MKP-1 by BCG ( Figure 3 ). These results suggest that BCG-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2.
Throughout the above experiments, the primary goal was to examine the induction of MKP-1 by BCG in human monocytes. Thus, to further examine the role of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling, transfection of siRNA into PBMo was used to knockdown the activity of MKP-1. To demonstrate that the MKP-1 siRNA can indeed knockdown the target gene, PBMo were first transfected with control or MKP-1 siRNA and then treated with BCG for 3 hours. Levels of MKP-1 mRNA were measured by RT-PCR method.
In Figure 4A , BCG stimulated MKP-1 expression (lanes 1 and 2). In MKP-1 siRNA transfected monocytes, induction of MKP-1 by BCG was significantly decreased (lanes 2 and 4). The results showed that the siRNA does abrogate the levels of MKP-1 mRNA.
To further determine whether MKP-1 siRNA affects BCGinduced MKP-1 at protein levels, PBMo were treated as above and MKP-1 proteins were measured by Western blotting. The results showed that BCG could induce MKP-1 proteins as usual for cells transfected with control siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 1-3). However, the levels of BCGinduced MKP-1 protein expression were reduced in cells transfected with MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 4-6). Together, the results suggest that MKP-1 siRNA not only reduced the MKP-1 mRNA in BCG treatment but also abrogated the BCG-induced MKP-1 protein.
As stated in the literature [9] , MKP-1 KO mice showed increased TNF-α production in response to LPS. On the basis of the above MKP-1 siRNA results, LPS was then used as a control to demonstrate the effects of this MKP-1 siRNA system. cytokine expression induced by LPS in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells suggest that the siRNA system is effective in knocking down the MKP-1 expression and MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced TNF-α expression.
To investigate the effect of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced cytokine expression, the levels of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA were measured by QPCR method. PBMo were transfected with either control or MKP-1 siRNA. Following exposure to BCG with control siRNA, there were significant inductions of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA levels for 3 hours after treatment as previously reported ( [5] and data not shown). Next, the effects of MKP-1 siRNA were examined on the cytokine expression induced by BCG. Surprisingly, there was a significant abrogation of BCGinduced TNF-α expression by MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4D ). With the knockdown of MKP-1, the level of BCG-induced TNF-α was only 60% compared to that of the control cells, while BCG-induced IL-6 and IL-10 were unchanged in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells. The results revealed that MKP-1 plays a role in the induction of TNF-α expression upon BCG stimulation, which may be different from that of its conventional functions in which MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced signaling pathways [7] .
The unexpected observations in cytokine expression lead to the investigation on the effects of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced MAPK activation. MKP-1 was found to have a preferential substrate binding to p38 MAPK and JNK than ERK1/2 [7] . The phosphorylation status of MAPKs was assessed in control or MKP-1 siRNA transfected PBMo. Western blotting results demonstrated that BCGinduced both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 phosphorylation in 15 minutes (data not shown) and peaked at 30 minutes, and then returned to basal levels in cells treated with the control siRNA ( Figure 5 ). Similar to the results of cytokine expression, phosphorylation of both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 in response to BCG was decreased in monocytes transfected with MKP-1 siRNA instead of the expected increase in phosphorylation ( Figure 5 ). The results suggest that MKP-1 knockdown would result in reduced MAPK phosphorylation by BCG, implying that the reduced level of TNF-α production in BCG stimulated monocytes is due to reduced phosphorylation of MAPKs by MKP-1 siRNA.
This report presented evidences that a novel function of MKP-1 is uncovered in cytokine regulation in response to mycobacterial infection. BCG induces MKP-1 as a rapid response (Figure 2) . The induction mechanism of MKP-1 by BCG is dependent on both ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK ( Figure 3 ). Using siRNA approach, the functions of MKP-1 can be examined in primary human monocytes. The results showed that the BCG-induced MAPKs activation as well as cytokine expression are downstream of MKP-1 ( Figures 4D and 5) . Thus, MKP-1 is a critical signaling molecule that is involved in BCG-induced cytokine expression.
Previous reports have shown that MKP-1 induced by LPS or peptidoglycan is dependent on p38 MAPK [14] . Accordingly, BCG-induced MKP-1 can be inhibited by both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 inhibitors. Interestingly, it has been shown that degradation of MKP-1 is reduced after ERK1/2 phosphorylation [15] . It can be hypothesized that BCG-induced MKP-1 proteins can be stabilized by ERK1/2 and the detailed mechanisms involved require more exploration. Also, since the inhibition of MKP-1 expression by both inhibitors (for p38 MAPK and ERK1/ 2) was not complete, it is believed that other proteins may be involved in the BCG-induced MKP-1 expression.
On the basis of the literature results on LPS effects ( Figure 6 ), the original expectation for this project is that MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator. LPS-stimulated MKP-1 KO peritoneal macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α [9] . In doing so, LPS-induced MKP-1 could BCG-induced MAPK phosphorylation is decreased by MKP-1 siRNA prevent prolonged TNF-α production as in sepsis which may lead to severe damage to the host. It was expected that BCG induces MKP-1 and its induction would correlate with the dephosphorylation of MAPKs including p38 MAPK. By blocking the MKP-1 using siRNA, it was expected to have increased p38 MAPK phosphorylation and prolonged TNF-α production in response to BCG. Nevertheless, our results shown here are diametrically opposite. One possibility for the unexpected results may be due to non-specific effects of transfection or siRNA. However, this was not the case since there was a prolonged and increased TNF-α expression after the MKP-1 siRNA-transfected monocytes were treated with LPS (Figure 4C ).
There is now a new hypothesis to explain such paradoxical effects of MKP-1 in TNF-α regulation in which the phosphatase plays a role in positive regulation of TNF-α production in response to BCG as in the case of DUSP2 [13] . The structures of MKP-1 and DUSP2 are similar, with which they both contain a MAPK-interacting domain and a phosphatase catalytic site. By contrast, other DUSP may have extra domains, e.g., PEST [6] . Here, we postulate that the function of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling is similar to that of the DUSP2/PAC1.
Actually, the discovery of DUSP2 has initially created some paradoxical questions. As described, DUSP2 behaves differently from other MKP family members [13] . In DUSP2 KO macrophages treated with LPS, they produced less inflammatory mediators including less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, and IL-12-producing cells, when compared to that of the wild type counterparts [13] . Indeed, the results of these published studies on DUSP2 studies are quite similar to that of our reported results here.
It is plausible that these unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 were due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . It was shown that there are interactions between JNK and ERK1/2 pathways [16] .
Here, we showed that the sustained activation of JNK blocks ERK activation ( Figure 6 ). In the DUSP2 situation, stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages shows increased phosphorylation of JNK, and inhibition of JNK by its own specific inhibitor restores phosphorylation of ERK1/2 [13] .
In the BCG-MKP-1 situation, there is an early phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Therefore, it is possible that JNK may play a role in the crosstalk interaction of MAPK. However, our preliminary data suggest that the level of phosphorylated JNK was not increased in PBMo MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection Figure 6 MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. LPS model was provided according to literature findings (Left). In this scenario, LPS activates MKP-1, which in turn dephosphorylates and deactivates phospho-p38 MAPK, resulting in less TNF-α induction. However, the situation in DHP-HSA activation of DUSP2 is more complicated (Middle), since the phosphatase activity causes subsequent inhibition of phospho-JNK which leads to the derepression of phospho-p38 MAPK. Consequently, the combined effects of this cascade results in more TNF-α expression. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 (Right) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case (Right), there was an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, and the unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation leading to more TNF-α induction. The details and kinase targets are yet to be identified. transfected with MKP-1 siRNA (data not shown). Thus, the details of the crosstalk between MAPKs need further investigation. Here, we present a model to summarize the results and to hypothesize the existence of an as yet unidentified intermediary factor or factors in the pathways downstream of MKP-1 effects in the BCG-induced signaling cascade. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 ( Figure 6 ) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case, BCG induces MKP-1 expression while also activates MAPKs including p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Downstream of MKP-1, there is an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases. The unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, which ultimately leads to more TNF-α induction ( Figure 6 ).
In summary, MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. Inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, which in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, may be used to explain the novel function of MKP-1 in enhancing MAPK activity and consequent TNF-α expression following BCG treatment ( Figure 6 ). Taken together, the role of MAPK crosstalks need further exploration. (3) TNF-α, 30 cycles (TM = 56°C), upstream, 5'-GGCTCCAGGCGGTGCTTGTTC-3', downstream, 5'-AGACGGCGATGCGGCTGATG-3'. PCR products were analyzed on a 1% agarose gel with ethidium bromide and visualized under ultraviolet light. In order to check the size of the PCR products, 1 kb Plus DNA Lad-der™ (Invitrogen, USA) was run along with the PCR products.
To perform QPCR, the levels of MKP-1, and TNF-α mRNA as well as the reference gene GAPDH (as internal control) were assayed by the gene-specific Assays-on-Demand reagent kits (Applied Biosystems, USA). All samples were run in duplicates or triplicates and with no template controls on an ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detector. The analysis method of QPCR was the comparative cycle number to threshold (C T ) method as described in user bulletin no. 2 of the ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detection System. The number of C T of the targeted genes was normalized to that of GAPDH in each sample (ΔC T ). The C T value of the treated cells was compared with that of the untreated or mock-treated cells (ΔΔCT). The relative gene expression of the targeted genes (fold induction) was calculated as 2 -ΔΔCT .
Total cellular proteins were extracted by lysing cells in lysis buffer containing 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA (pH 8.0), 1% SDS, 0.2 mg/ml PMSF, 1 μg/ml aprotinin, 1 mM sodium orthovanadate, 2 μg/ml pepstatin, 2 μg/ml leupeptin, and 50 mM sodium fluoride for 5 minutes. The homogenate was then boiled for 10 minutes and stored at -70°C until use. The concentrations of total protein in cell extracts were determined by BCA™ Protein Assay Kit (Pierce, IL, USA).
Western blot was done as described [20] . Equal amounts of protein were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE, electroblotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (Schleicher & Schuell), and followed by probing with specific antibod-ies for Actin, MKP-1 (Santa Cruz Biotech., USA), phospho-p38 MAPK, phospho-ERK1/2 (Cell Signaling, USA). After three washes, the membranes were incubated with the corresponding secondary antibodies. The bands were detected using the Enhanced Chemiluminescence System (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) as per the manufacturer's instructions.
Transfection of siRNA into human monocytes was done as described [21] . MKP-1 siRNA included (i) MKP1-HSS102982, AAACGCUUCGUAUCCUCCUUUGAGG; (ii) MKP1-HSS102983, UUAUGCCCAAGGCAUCCAG-CAUGUC; and (iii) MKP1-HSS102984, UGAUG-GAGUCUAUGAAGUCAAUGGC. MKP-1 knockdown in PBMo was conducted by using MKP1-HSS102983 only or a pool of the above three different MKP-1 Stealth™ Select RNAi (ratio = 1:1:1, 200 nM, Invitrogen, USA). Stealth™ RNAi Negative Control Duplex (200 nM) was used as a control for sequence independent effects for the siRNA transfection. Transfection of monocytes was done by using jetPEI™ DNA transfection reagent (Polyplus Transfection, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After transfecting the cells for 24 h, the transfectants were treated with different inducers as described above.
Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t test. Differences were considered statistically significant when p values were less than 0.05. | How many new tuberculosis cases are there each year worldwide? | {
"answer_start": [
2089
],
"text": [
"9.2 million"
]
} | false |
893 | A novel anti-mycobacterial function of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804704/
SHA: f6ed1f1e9999e57793addb1c9c54f61c7861a995
Authors: Cheung, Benny KW; Yim, Howard CH; Lee, Norris CM; Lau, Allan SY
Date: 2009-12-17
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2172-10-64
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. To combat against this pathogen, immune cells release cytokines including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which is pivotal in the development of protective granulomas. Our previous results showed that Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG), a mycobacterium used as a model to investigate the immune response against MTB, stimulates the induction of TNF-α via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) in human blood monocytes. Since MAPK phosphatase-1 (MKP-1) is known to regulate MAPK activities, we examined whether MKP-1 plays a role in BCG-induced MAPK activation and cytokine expression. RESULTS: Primary human blood monocytes were treated with BCG and assayed for MKP-1 expression. Our results demonstrated that following exposure to BCG, there was an increase in the expression of MKP-1. Additionally, the induction of MKP-1 was regulated by p38 MAPK and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2). Surprisingly, when MKP-1 expression was blocked by its specific siRNA, there was a significant decrease in the levels of phospho-MAPK (p38 MAPK and ERK1/2) and TNF-α inducible by BCG. CONCLUSIONS: Since TNF-α is pivotal in granuloma formation, the results indicated an unexpected positive function of MKP-1 against mycobacterial infection as opposed to its usual phosphatase activity.
Text: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world, especially in the developing countries [1] . The disease is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and approximately one third of the world's population has been infected by this pathogen. In a recent report, World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that there are 9.2 million new TB cases around the world in 2006 [1] .
In response to MTB infection, induction of cytokines by immune cells is an important defense mechanism. The infected macrophages secrete intercellular signaling factors, proinflammatory cytokines, to mediate the inflammatory response leading to the formation of granuloma and induction of T-cell mediated immunity [2] . In order to understand TB pathogenesis, signaling pathways induced by mycobacteria have long been a subject of interest. Mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPKs) including extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), p38 MAPK, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) have been implicated as important cellular signaling molecules activated by mycobacteria [3] . Previous reports have shown that p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 are required in the induction of TNF-α expression in human monocytes infected with M. tuberculosis H37Rv [4] . We have further revealed the significant role of MAPKs in the signal transduction events of mycobacterial activation of primary human blood monocytes (PBMo) leading to cytokine expressions via the interaction with PKR [5] . However, the subsequent events as to how MAPK is regulated and how such regulation affects cytokine production in response to mycobacteria remain to be elucidated.
Since MAPKs are activated by phosphorylation, dephosphorylation of MAPKs seems to be an efficient process to inactivate their activities. It can be achieved by specific protein kinase phosphatases which can remove the phosphate group from MAPKs. Examples of these phosphatases include tyrosine phosphatases, serine/threonine phosphatases, and dual-specificity phosphatases (DUSPs). Some DUSPs are also known as MAPK phosphatases (MKPs) [6] [7] [8] . Currently, there are at least 10 MKPs identified, while MKP-1 is the most studied member of the family. The regulatory role of MKP-1 on cytokine induction is best demonstrated by MKP-1 knockout (KO) macrophages in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria. MKP-1 KO macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α in response to LPS treatment [9] . Consistent with these results, another group further revealed that LPS-treated MKP-1 KO bone marrow-derived macrophages show increased AP-1 DNA-binding activity [10] . Also, they showed that LPS-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88) and TIR domain-containing adaptor inducing IFN-β (TRIF) [10] , thus demonstrating the role of MKP-1 in signal transduction.
Not only LPS, other TLR inducers including CpG, peptidoglycan, poly IC, and Pam 3 Cys can regulate cytokine expressions including TNF-α, IL-10 via MKP-1 activities [10, 11] . In these processes, MKP-1 serves to mitigate the undesirable effects of septic shock and maintain organ functions by restraining the inflammatory responses following bacterial infection. Another example of MKP-1 function is the immune response to Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a Gram positive bacteria. There are higher levels of cytokine production including TNF-α, IL-6, and MIP-1α in MKP-1 KO mice infected with S. aureus [12] . Also, the mice would have a rapid development of multiorgan dysfunction as well as faster mortality rate upon challenge with heat-killed S. aureus [12] . Taken together, these results suggest that MKP-1 protects the host from overactivation of the immune system in response to Gram negative or Gram positive bacteria.
In the past, it was believed that different MKP/DUSP family members have overlapping functions. However, the emergence of DUSP2 turned the concept up side down [13] . It was shown that DUSP2 behaves differently and is opposite to the function as stated above. In DUSP2 KO cells, they produced less inflammatory mediators, implying that DUSP2 may play a role in mediating instead of limiting inflammation. For instances, when DUSP2 KO macrophages were treated with LPS, there were less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, IL-12-producing cells when compared to those of the wild type counterparts [13] . When the DUSP2 KO bone marrow-derived mast cells were first sensitized with immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor (FcεRI) and then stimulated with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen, they produced lower TNF mRNA levels, diminished IL-6 production, less phosphorylation of ERK1/2, p38 MAPK, and less transcriptional activities by Elk1 and NFAT-AP-1 [13] .
These unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 have been hypothesized to be due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . Stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages showed increases in phosphorylation of JNK. Moreover, inhibition of JNK by small molecule inhibitors showed increases in phosphorylation of ERK [13] . The authors also showed that there were physical interactions of DUSP2 with ERK2, DUSP2 with JNK2, as well as DUSP2 and p38 MAPK after stimulation of the cells with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen. Nevertheless, the details of the crosstalks between MAPKs and phosphatases need further investigation. Thus, the MKP family plays a critical role in the regulation of immune responses.
Innate immune response protects the host from MTB infection by secretion of cytokines including TNF-α in immune cells. Meanwhile, MAPK is one of the critical proteins in the regulation of immunity and cytokine expression. Since MAPK is regulated by MKP-1 in response to LPS and the activation of MAPK is important in BCGinduced cytokine expression, we hypothesize that MKP-1 plays a critical role in the immune regulation of BCG in human monocytes. We examined the involvement of MKP-1 in BCG-induced MAPK activation and its consequent cytokine expression. Here, we present evidences that MKP-1 plays an unexpected role in the regulation of cytokine induction by BCG through its control of MAPK phosphorylation.
It has been reported that many inducers including growth factors, LPS, peptidoglycan, and dexamethasone can stimulate the expression of MKP-1 in human macrophages, microglia, mast cells or fibroblasts [6] . To investigate the role of different TLR inducers in MKP-1 induction process in human blood monocytes, the level of MKP-1 mRNA was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) method. PBMo were isolated from primary human blood mononuclear cells and stimulated with Pam 3 Cys (TLR2 agonist), poly IC (TLR3 agonist), or LPS (TLR4 agonist) for 1 and 3 hours. Following exposure to Pam 3 Cys or LPS, there were significant inductions of MKP-1 mRNA levels within 1 hour of treatment ( Figure 1A ). These effects on MKP-1 induction continued for 3 hours post-treatment with Pam 3 Cys ( Figure 1A ). In contrast, poly IC did not induce MKP-1 ( Figure 1A ). The results indicate that different inducers showed differential up-regulation of MKP-1 expression.
LPS has been extensively used to demonstrate the role of MKP-1 in immune response both in vivo and in vitro [9, 12] . To establish a foundation for interpretation of subsequent experimental results, LPS was used as a positive control for the induction of MKP-1 expression. To determine the levels of MKP-1 in response to LPS, kinetics of MKP-1 transcription were determined by QPCR. There was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA, which peaked as early as 1 hour upon LPS stimulation, and the levels gradually decreased over a course of 6 hours. These results showed that LPS induced MKP-1 expression (Figure 1B) .
Next, to demonstrate the induction of specific phosphatases by BCG, kinetics of MKP-1 expression in PBMo was studied by using QPCR during BCG treatment. Similar to the results produced by LPS, upon the addition of BCG (MOI = 1 CFU/cell), there was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA within 1 hour of BCG treatment as determined by Taqman probe specific for MKP-1 ( Figure 2A ). The effects lasted for at least 6 hours ( Figure 2A ).
To examine whether the changes of protein production were in parallel to that of the mRNA levels, the protein levels of MKP-1 were measured by Western blotting. In response to BCG, PBMo produced the MKP-1 protein as early as 30 minutes after treatment. The protein levels were maintained for 2 hours and dropped to basal levels at 3 hours ( Figure 2B ). The results demonstrated that there was MKP-1 induction in response to BCG activation in human monocytes.
It has been shown that inhibition of p38 MAPK either by specific inhibitor or siRNA reduced the expression of MKP-1 in LPS-or peptidoglycan-treated macrophages [14] . To determine the mechanisms involved in the BCGinduced MKP-1 expression, PBMo were pretreated with several inhibitors including PD98059 (inhibitor for MAP kinase kinase [MEK] or ERK1/2), SB203580 (inhibitor for p38 MAPK), SP600125 (inhibitor for JNK), and CAPE (inhibitor for NF-κB) for 1 hour. A range of concentrations of each inhibitor was used to test their optimal concentrations and effects on cell viability and kinase inhibitions. BCG was added afterwards and total RNA was harvested. The results demonstrated that, with the inhibition of ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK activities by their corresponding relatively specific inhibitors, MKP-1 expressions were significantly reduced ( Figure 3 ). In addition, using higher dose of SB203580, we showed that the inhibition is increased further (data not shown). On the contrary, pretreatment of the cells with CAPE and SP600125 did not affect the induction of MKP-1 by BCG ( Figure 3 ). These results suggest that BCG-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2.
Throughout the above experiments, the primary goal was to examine the induction of MKP-1 by BCG in human monocytes. Thus, to further examine the role of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling, transfection of siRNA into PBMo was used to knockdown the activity of MKP-1. To demonstrate that the MKP-1 siRNA can indeed knockdown the target gene, PBMo were first transfected with control or MKP-1 siRNA and then treated with BCG for 3 hours. Levels of MKP-1 mRNA were measured by RT-PCR method.
In Figure 4A , BCG stimulated MKP-1 expression (lanes 1 and 2). In MKP-1 siRNA transfected monocytes, induction of MKP-1 by BCG was significantly decreased (lanes 2 and 4). The results showed that the siRNA does abrogate the levels of MKP-1 mRNA.
To further determine whether MKP-1 siRNA affects BCGinduced MKP-1 at protein levels, PBMo were treated as above and MKP-1 proteins were measured by Western blotting. The results showed that BCG could induce MKP-1 proteins as usual for cells transfected with control siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 1-3). However, the levels of BCGinduced MKP-1 protein expression were reduced in cells transfected with MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 4-6). Together, the results suggest that MKP-1 siRNA not only reduced the MKP-1 mRNA in BCG treatment but also abrogated the BCG-induced MKP-1 protein.
As stated in the literature [9] , MKP-1 KO mice showed increased TNF-α production in response to LPS. On the basis of the above MKP-1 siRNA results, LPS was then used as a control to demonstrate the effects of this MKP-1 siRNA system. cytokine expression induced by LPS in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells suggest that the siRNA system is effective in knocking down the MKP-1 expression and MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced TNF-α expression.
To investigate the effect of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced cytokine expression, the levels of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA were measured by QPCR method. PBMo were transfected with either control or MKP-1 siRNA. Following exposure to BCG with control siRNA, there were significant inductions of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA levels for 3 hours after treatment as previously reported ( [5] and data not shown). Next, the effects of MKP-1 siRNA were examined on the cytokine expression induced by BCG. Surprisingly, there was a significant abrogation of BCGinduced TNF-α expression by MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4D ). With the knockdown of MKP-1, the level of BCG-induced TNF-α was only 60% compared to that of the control cells, while BCG-induced IL-6 and IL-10 were unchanged in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells. The results revealed that MKP-1 plays a role in the induction of TNF-α expression upon BCG stimulation, which may be different from that of its conventional functions in which MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced signaling pathways [7] .
The unexpected observations in cytokine expression lead to the investigation on the effects of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced MAPK activation. MKP-1 was found to have a preferential substrate binding to p38 MAPK and JNK than ERK1/2 [7] . The phosphorylation status of MAPKs was assessed in control or MKP-1 siRNA transfected PBMo. Western blotting results demonstrated that BCGinduced both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 phosphorylation in 15 minutes (data not shown) and peaked at 30 minutes, and then returned to basal levels in cells treated with the control siRNA ( Figure 5 ). Similar to the results of cytokine expression, phosphorylation of both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 in response to BCG was decreased in monocytes transfected with MKP-1 siRNA instead of the expected increase in phosphorylation ( Figure 5 ). The results suggest that MKP-1 knockdown would result in reduced MAPK phosphorylation by BCG, implying that the reduced level of TNF-α production in BCG stimulated monocytes is due to reduced phosphorylation of MAPKs by MKP-1 siRNA.
This report presented evidences that a novel function of MKP-1 is uncovered in cytokine regulation in response to mycobacterial infection. BCG induces MKP-1 as a rapid response (Figure 2) . The induction mechanism of MKP-1 by BCG is dependent on both ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK ( Figure 3 ). Using siRNA approach, the functions of MKP-1 can be examined in primary human monocytes. The results showed that the BCG-induced MAPKs activation as well as cytokine expression are downstream of MKP-1 ( Figures 4D and 5) . Thus, MKP-1 is a critical signaling molecule that is involved in BCG-induced cytokine expression.
Previous reports have shown that MKP-1 induced by LPS or peptidoglycan is dependent on p38 MAPK [14] . Accordingly, BCG-induced MKP-1 can be inhibited by both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 inhibitors. Interestingly, it has been shown that degradation of MKP-1 is reduced after ERK1/2 phosphorylation [15] . It can be hypothesized that BCG-induced MKP-1 proteins can be stabilized by ERK1/2 and the detailed mechanisms involved require more exploration. Also, since the inhibition of MKP-1 expression by both inhibitors (for p38 MAPK and ERK1/ 2) was not complete, it is believed that other proteins may be involved in the BCG-induced MKP-1 expression.
On the basis of the literature results on LPS effects ( Figure 6 ), the original expectation for this project is that MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator. LPS-stimulated MKP-1 KO peritoneal macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α [9] . In doing so, LPS-induced MKP-1 could BCG-induced MAPK phosphorylation is decreased by MKP-1 siRNA prevent prolonged TNF-α production as in sepsis which may lead to severe damage to the host. It was expected that BCG induces MKP-1 and its induction would correlate with the dephosphorylation of MAPKs including p38 MAPK. By blocking the MKP-1 using siRNA, it was expected to have increased p38 MAPK phosphorylation and prolonged TNF-α production in response to BCG. Nevertheless, our results shown here are diametrically opposite. One possibility for the unexpected results may be due to non-specific effects of transfection or siRNA. However, this was not the case since there was a prolonged and increased TNF-α expression after the MKP-1 siRNA-transfected monocytes were treated with LPS (Figure 4C ).
There is now a new hypothesis to explain such paradoxical effects of MKP-1 in TNF-α regulation in which the phosphatase plays a role in positive regulation of TNF-α production in response to BCG as in the case of DUSP2 [13] . The structures of MKP-1 and DUSP2 are similar, with which they both contain a MAPK-interacting domain and a phosphatase catalytic site. By contrast, other DUSP may have extra domains, e.g., PEST [6] . Here, we postulate that the function of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling is similar to that of the DUSP2/PAC1.
Actually, the discovery of DUSP2 has initially created some paradoxical questions. As described, DUSP2 behaves differently from other MKP family members [13] . In DUSP2 KO macrophages treated with LPS, they produced less inflammatory mediators including less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, and IL-12-producing cells, when compared to that of the wild type counterparts [13] . Indeed, the results of these published studies on DUSP2 studies are quite similar to that of our reported results here.
It is plausible that these unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 were due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . It was shown that there are interactions between JNK and ERK1/2 pathways [16] .
Here, we showed that the sustained activation of JNK blocks ERK activation ( Figure 6 ). In the DUSP2 situation, stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages shows increased phosphorylation of JNK, and inhibition of JNK by its own specific inhibitor restores phosphorylation of ERK1/2 [13] .
In the BCG-MKP-1 situation, there is an early phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Therefore, it is possible that JNK may play a role in the crosstalk interaction of MAPK. However, our preliminary data suggest that the level of phosphorylated JNK was not increased in PBMo MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection Figure 6 MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. LPS model was provided according to literature findings (Left). In this scenario, LPS activates MKP-1, which in turn dephosphorylates and deactivates phospho-p38 MAPK, resulting in less TNF-α induction. However, the situation in DHP-HSA activation of DUSP2 is more complicated (Middle), since the phosphatase activity causes subsequent inhibition of phospho-JNK which leads to the derepression of phospho-p38 MAPK. Consequently, the combined effects of this cascade results in more TNF-α expression. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 (Right) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case (Right), there was an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, and the unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation leading to more TNF-α induction. The details and kinase targets are yet to be identified. transfected with MKP-1 siRNA (data not shown). Thus, the details of the crosstalk between MAPKs need further investigation. Here, we present a model to summarize the results and to hypothesize the existence of an as yet unidentified intermediary factor or factors in the pathways downstream of MKP-1 effects in the BCG-induced signaling cascade. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 ( Figure 6 ) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case, BCG induces MKP-1 expression while also activates MAPKs including p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Downstream of MKP-1, there is an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases. The unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, which ultimately leads to more TNF-α induction ( Figure 6 ).
In summary, MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. Inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, which in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, may be used to explain the novel function of MKP-1 in enhancing MAPK activity and consequent TNF-α expression following BCG treatment ( Figure 6 ). Taken together, the role of MAPK crosstalks need further exploration. (3) TNF-α, 30 cycles (TM = 56°C), upstream, 5'-GGCTCCAGGCGGTGCTTGTTC-3', downstream, 5'-AGACGGCGATGCGGCTGATG-3'. PCR products were analyzed on a 1% agarose gel with ethidium bromide and visualized under ultraviolet light. In order to check the size of the PCR products, 1 kb Plus DNA Lad-der™ (Invitrogen, USA) was run along with the PCR products.
To perform QPCR, the levels of MKP-1, and TNF-α mRNA as well as the reference gene GAPDH (as internal control) were assayed by the gene-specific Assays-on-Demand reagent kits (Applied Biosystems, USA). All samples were run in duplicates or triplicates and with no template controls on an ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detector. The analysis method of QPCR was the comparative cycle number to threshold (C T ) method as described in user bulletin no. 2 of the ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detection System. The number of C T of the targeted genes was normalized to that of GAPDH in each sample (ΔC T ). The C T value of the treated cells was compared with that of the untreated or mock-treated cells (ΔΔCT). The relative gene expression of the targeted genes (fold induction) was calculated as 2 -ΔΔCT .
Total cellular proteins were extracted by lysing cells in lysis buffer containing 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA (pH 8.0), 1% SDS, 0.2 mg/ml PMSF, 1 μg/ml aprotinin, 1 mM sodium orthovanadate, 2 μg/ml pepstatin, 2 μg/ml leupeptin, and 50 mM sodium fluoride for 5 minutes. The homogenate was then boiled for 10 minutes and stored at -70°C until use. The concentrations of total protein in cell extracts were determined by BCA™ Protein Assay Kit (Pierce, IL, USA).
Western blot was done as described [20] . Equal amounts of protein were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE, electroblotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (Schleicher & Schuell), and followed by probing with specific antibod-ies for Actin, MKP-1 (Santa Cruz Biotech., USA), phospho-p38 MAPK, phospho-ERK1/2 (Cell Signaling, USA). After three washes, the membranes were incubated with the corresponding secondary antibodies. The bands were detected using the Enhanced Chemiluminescence System (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) as per the manufacturer's instructions.
Transfection of siRNA into human monocytes was done as described [21] . MKP-1 siRNA included (i) MKP1-HSS102982, AAACGCUUCGUAUCCUCCUUUGAGG; (ii) MKP1-HSS102983, UUAUGCCCAAGGCAUCCAG-CAUGUC; and (iii) MKP1-HSS102984, UGAUG-GAGUCUAUGAAGUCAAUGGC. MKP-1 knockdown in PBMo was conducted by using MKP1-HSS102983 only or a pool of the above three different MKP-1 Stealth™ Select RNAi (ratio = 1:1:1, 200 nM, Invitrogen, USA). Stealth™ RNAi Negative Control Duplex (200 nM) was used as a control for sequence independent effects for the siRNA transfection. Transfection of monocytes was done by using jetPEI™ DNA transfection reagent (Polyplus Transfection, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After transfecting the cells for 24 h, the transfectants were treated with different inducers as described above.
Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t test. Differences were considered statistically significant when p values were less than 0.05. | What are some mitogen activated protein kinases? | {
"answer_start": [
2639
],
"text": [
"extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), p38 MAPK, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK)"
]
} | false |
894 | A novel anti-mycobacterial function of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804704/
SHA: f6ed1f1e9999e57793addb1c9c54f61c7861a995
Authors: Cheung, Benny KW; Yim, Howard CH; Lee, Norris CM; Lau, Allan SY
Date: 2009-12-17
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2172-10-64
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. To combat against this pathogen, immune cells release cytokines including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which is pivotal in the development of protective granulomas. Our previous results showed that Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG), a mycobacterium used as a model to investigate the immune response against MTB, stimulates the induction of TNF-α via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) in human blood monocytes. Since MAPK phosphatase-1 (MKP-1) is known to regulate MAPK activities, we examined whether MKP-1 plays a role in BCG-induced MAPK activation and cytokine expression. RESULTS: Primary human blood monocytes were treated with BCG and assayed for MKP-1 expression. Our results demonstrated that following exposure to BCG, there was an increase in the expression of MKP-1. Additionally, the induction of MKP-1 was regulated by p38 MAPK and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2). Surprisingly, when MKP-1 expression was blocked by its specific siRNA, there was a significant decrease in the levels of phospho-MAPK (p38 MAPK and ERK1/2) and TNF-α inducible by BCG. CONCLUSIONS: Since TNF-α is pivotal in granuloma formation, the results indicated an unexpected positive function of MKP-1 against mycobacterial infection as opposed to its usual phosphatase activity.
Text: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world, especially in the developing countries [1] . The disease is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and approximately one third of the world's population has been infected by this pathogen. In a recent report, World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that there are 9.2 million new TB cases around the world in 2006 [1] .
In response to MTB infection, induction of cytokines by immune cells is an important defense mechanism. The infected macrophages secrete intercellular signaling factors, proinflammatory cytokines, to mediate the inflammatory response leading to the formation of granuloma and induction of T-cell mediated immunity [2] . In order to understand TB pathogenesis, signaling pathways induced by mycobacteria have long been a subject of interest. Mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPKs) including extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), p38 MAPK, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) have been implicated as important cellular signaling molecules activated by mycobacteria [3] . Previous reports have shown that p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 are required in the induction of TNF-α expression in human monocytes infected with M. tuberculosis H37Rv [4] . We have further revealed the significant role of MAPKs in the signal transduction events of mycobacterial activation of primary human blood monocytes (PBMo) leading to cytokine expressions via the interaction with PKR [5] . However, the subsequent events as to how MAPK is regulated and how such regulation affects cytokine production in response to mycobacteria remain to be elucidated.
Since MAPKs are activated by phosphorylation, dephosphorylation of MAPKs seems to be an efficient process to inactivate their activities. It can be achieved by specific protein kinase phosphatases which can remove the phosphate group from MAPKs. Examples of these phosphatases include tyrosine phosphatases, serine/threonine phosphatases, and dual-specificity phosphatases (DUSPs). Some DUSPs are also known as MAPK phosphatases (MKPs) [6] [7] [8] . Currently, there are at least 10 MKPs identified, while MKP-1 is the most studied member of the family. The regulatory role of MKP-1 on cytokine induction is best demonstrated by MKP-1 knockout (KO) macrophages in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria. MKP-1 KO macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α in response to LPS treatment [9] . Consistent with these results, another group further revealed that LPS-treated MKP-1 KO bone marrow-derived macrophages show increased AP-1 DNA-binding activity [10] . Also, they showed that LPS-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88) and TIR domain-containing adaptor inducing IFN-β (TRIF) [10] , thus demonstrating the role of MKP-1 in signal transduction.
Not only LPS, other TLR inducers including CpG, peptidoglycan, poly IC, and Pam 3 Cys can regulate cytokine expressions including TNF-α, IL-10 via MKP-1 activities [10, 11] . In these processes, MKP-1 serves to mitigate the undesirable effects of septic shock and maintain organ functions by restraining the inflammatory responses following bacterial infection. Another example of MKP-1 function is the immune response to Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a Gram positive bacteria. There are higher levels of cytokine production including TNF-α, IL-6, and MIP-1α in MKP-1 KO mice infected with S. aureus [12] . Also, the mice would have a rapid development of multiorgan dysfunction as well as faster mortality rate upon challenge with heat-killed S. aureus [12] . Taken together, these results suggest that MKP-1 protects the host from overactivation of the immune system in response to Gram negative or Gram positive bacteria.
In the past, it was believed that different MKP/DUSP family members have overlapping functions. However, the emergence of DUSP2 turned the concept up side down [13] . It was shown that DUSP2 behaves differently and is opposite to the function as stated above. In DUSP2 KO cells, they produced less inflammatory mediators, implying that DUSP2 may play a role in mediating instead of limiting inflammation. For instances, when DUSP2 KO macrophages were treated with LPS, there were less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, IL-12-producing cells when compared to those of the wild type counterparts [13] . When the DUSP2 KO bone marrow-derived mast cells were first sensitized with immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor (FcεRI) and then stimulated with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen, they produced lower TNF mRNA levels, diminished IL-6 production, less phosphorylation of ERK1/2, p38 MAPK, and less transcriptional activities by Elk1 and NFAT-AP-1 [13] .
These unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 have been hypothesized to be due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . Stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages showed increases in phosphorylation of JNK. Moreover, inhibition of JNK by small molecule inhibitors showed increases in phosphorylation of ERK [13] . The authors also showed that there were physical interactions of DUSP2 with ERK2, DUSP2 with JNK2, as well as DUSP2 and p38 MAPK after stimulation of the cells with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen. Nevertheless, the details of the crosstalks between MAPKs and phosphatases need further investigation. Thus, the MKP family plays a critical role in the regulation of immune responses.
Innate immune response protects the host from MTB infection by secretion of cytokines including TNF-α in immune cells. Meanwhile, MAPK is one of the critical proteins in the regulation of immunity and cytokine expression. Since MAPK is regulated by MKP-1 in response to LPS and the activation of MAPK is important in BCGinduced cytokine expression, we hypothesize that MKP-1 plays a critical role in the immune regulation of BCG in human monocytes. We examined the involvement of MKP-1 in BCG-induced MAPK activation and its consequent cytokine expression. Here, we present evidences that MKP-1 plays an unexpected role in the regulation of cytokine induction by BCG through its control of MAPK phosphorylation.
It has been reported that many inducers including growth factors, LPS, peptidoglycan, and dexamethasone can stimulate the expression of MKP-1 in human macrophages, microglia, mast cells or fibroblasts [6] . To investigate the role of different TLR inducers in MKP-1 induction process in human blood monocytes, the level of MKP-1 mRNA was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) method. PBMo were isolated from primary human blood mononuclear cells and stimulated with Pam 3 Cys (TLR2 agonist), poly IC (TLR3 agonist), or LPS (TLR4 agonist) for 1 and 3 hours. Following exposure to Pam 3 Cys or LPS, there were significant inductions of MKP-1 mRNA levels within 1 hour of treatment ( Figure 1A ). These effects on MKP-1 induction continued for 3 hours post-treatment with Pam 3 Cys ( Figure 1A ). In contrast, poly IC did not induce MKP-1 ( Figure 1A ). The results indicate that different inducers showed differential up-regulation of MKP-1 expression.
LPS has been extensively used to demonstrate the role of MKP-1 in immune response both in vivo and in vitro [9, 12] . To establish a foundation for interpretation of subsequent experimental results, LPS was used as a positive control for the induction of MKP-1 expression. To determine the levels of MKP-1 in response to LPS, kinetics of MKP-1 transcription were determined by QPCR. There was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA, which peaked as early as 1 hour upon LPS stimulation, and the levels gradually decreased over a course of 6 hours. These results showed that LPS induced MKP-1 expression (Figure 1B) .
Next, to demonstrate the induction of specific phosphatases by BCG, kinetics of MKP-1 expression in PBMo was studied by using QPCR during BCG treatment. Similar to the results produced by LPS, upon the addition of BCG (MOI = 1 CFU/cell), there was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA within 1 hour of BCG treatment as determined by Taqman probe specific for MKP-1 ( Figure 2A ). The effects lasted for at least 6 hours ( Figure 2A ).
To examine whether the changes of protein production were in parallel to that of the mRNA levels, the protein levels of MKP-1 were measured by Western blotting. In response to BCG, PBMo produced the MKP-1 protein as early as 30 minutes after treatment. The protein levels were maintained for 2 hours and dropped to basal levels at 3 hours ( Figure 2B ). The results demonstrated that there was MKP-1 induction in response to BCG activation in human monocytes.
It has been shown that inhibition of p38 MAPK either by specific inhibitor or siRNA reduced the expression of MKP-1 in LPS-or peptidoglycan-treated macrophages [14] . To determine the mechanisms involved in the BCGinduced MKP-1 expression, PBMo were pretreated with several inhibitors including PD98059 (inhibitor for MAP kinase kinase [MEK] or ERK1/2), SB203580 (inhibitor for p38 MAPK), SP600125 (inhibitor for JNK), and CAPE (inhibitor for NF-κB) for 1 hour. A range of concentrations of each inhibitor was used to test their optimal concentrations and effects on cell viability and kinase inhibitions. BCG was added afterwards and total RNA was harvested. The results demonstrated that, with the inhibition of ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK activities by their corresponding relatively specific inhibitors, MKP-1 expressions were significantly reduced ( Figure 3 ). In addition, using higher dose of SB203580, we showed that the inhibition is increased further (data not shown). On the contrary, pretreatment of the cells with CAPE and SP600125 did not affect the induction of MKP-1 by BCG ( Figure 3 ). These results suggest that BCG-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2.
Throughout the above experiments, the primary goal was to examine the induction of MKP-1 by BCG in human monocytes. Thus, to further examine the role of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling, transfection of siRNA into PBMo was used to knockdown the activity of MKP-1. To demonstrate that the MKP-1 siRNA can indeed knockdown the target gene, PBMo were first transfected with control or MKP-1 siRNA and then treated with BCG for 3 hours. Levels of MKP-1 mRNA were measured by RT-PCR method.
In Figure 4A , BCG stimulated MKP-1 expression (lanes 1 and 2). In MKP-1 siRNA transfected monocytes, induction of MKP-1 by BCG was significantly decreased (lanes 2 and 4). The results showed that the siRNA does abrogate the levels of MKP-1 mRNA.
To further determine whether MKP-1 siRNA affects BCGinduced MKP-1 at protein levels, PBMo were treated as above and MKP-1 proteins were measured by Western blotting. The results showed that BCG could induce MKP-1 proteins as usual for cells transfected with control siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 1-3). However, the levels of BCGinduced MKP-1 protein expression were reduced in cells transfected with MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 4-6). Together, the results suggest that MKP-1 siRNA not only reduced the MKP-1 mRNA in BCG treatment but also abrogated the BCG-induced MKP-1 protein.
As stated in the literature [9] , MKP-1 KO mice showed increased TNF-α production in response to LPS. On the basis of the above MKP-1 siRNA results, LPS was then used as a control to demonstrate the effects of this MKP-1 siRNA system. cytokine expression induced by LPS in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells suggest that the siRNA system is effective in knocking down the MKP-1 expression and MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced TNF-α expression.
To investigate the effect of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced cytokine expression, the levels of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA were measured by QPCR method. PBMo were transfected with either control or MKP-1 siRNA. Following exposure to BCG with control siRNA, there were significant inductions of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA levels for 3 hours after treatment as previously reported ( [5] and data not shown). Next, the effects of MKP-1 siRNA were examined on the cytokine expression induced by BCG. Surprisingly, there was a significant abrogation of BCGinduced TNF-α expression by MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4D ). With the knockdown of MKP-1, the level of BCG-induced TNF-α was only 60% compared to that of the control cells, while BCG-induced IL-6 and IL-10 were unchanged in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells. The results revealed that MKP-1 plays a role in the induction of TNF-α expression upon BCG stimulation, which may be different from that of its conventional functions in which MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced signaling pathways [7] .
The unexpected observations in cytokine expression lead to the investigation on the effects of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced MAPK activation. MKP-1 was found to have a preferential substrate binding to p38 MAPK and JNK than ERK1/2 [7] . The phosphorylation status of MAPKs was assessed in control or MKP-1 siRNA transfected PBMo. Western blotting results demonstrated that BCGinduced both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 phosphorylation in 15 minutes (data not shown) and peaked at 30 minutes, and then returned to basal levels in cells treated with the control siRNA ( Figure 5 ). Similar to the results of cytokine expression, phosphorylation of both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 in response to BCG was decreased in monocytes transfected with MKP-1 siRNA instead of the expected increase in phosphorylation ( Figure 5 ). The results suggest that MKP-1 knockdown would result in reduced MAPK phosphorylation by BCG, implying that the reduced level of TNF-α production in BCG stimulated monocytes is due to reduced phosphorylation of MAPKs by MKP-1 siRNA.
This report presented evidences that a novel function of MKP-1 is uncovered in cytokine regulation in response to mycobacterial infection. BCG induces MKP-1 as a rapid response (Figure 2) . The induction mechanism of MKP-1 by BCG is dependent on both ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK ( Figure 3 ). Using siRNA approach, the functions of MKP-1 can be examined in primary human monocytes. The results showed that the BCG-induced MAPKs activation as well as cytokine expression are downstream of MKP-1 ( Figures 4D and 5) . Thus, MKP-1 is a critical signaling molecule that is involved in BCG-induced cytokine expression.
Previous reports have shown that MKP-1 induced by LPS or peptidoglycan is dependent on p38 MAPK [14] . Accordingly, BCG-induced MKP-1 can be inhibited by both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 inhibitors. Interestingly, it has been shown that degradation of MKP-1 is reduced after ERK1/2 phosphorylation [15] . It can be hypothesized that BCG-induced MKP-1 proteins can be stabilized by ERK1/2 and the detailed mechanisms involved require more exploration. Also, since the inhibition of MKP-1 expression by both inhibitors (for p38 MAPK and ERK1/ 2) was not complete, it is believed that other proteins may be involved in the BCG-induced MKP-1 expression.
On the basis of the literature results on LPS effects ( Figure 6 ), the original expectation for this project is that MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator. LPS-stimulated MKP-1 KO peritoneal macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α [9] . In doing so, LPS-induced MKP-1 could BCG-induced MAPK phosphorylation is decreased by MKP-1 siRNA prevent prolonged TNF-α production as in sepsis which may lead to severe damage to the host. It was expected that BCG induces MKP-1 and its induction would correlate with the dephosphorylation of MAPKs including p38 MAPK. By blocking the MKP-1 using siRNA, it was expected to have increased p38 MAPK phosphorylation and prolonged TNF-α production in response to BCG. Nevertheless, our results shown here are diametrically opposite. One possibility for the unexpected results may be due to non-specific effects of transfection or siRNA. However, this was not the case since there was a prolonged and increased TNF-α expression after the MKP-1 siRNA-transfected monocytes were treated with LPS (Figure 4C ).
There is now a new hypothesis to explain such paradoxical effects of MKP-1 in TNF-α regulation in which the phosphatase plays a role in positive regulation of TNF-α production in response to BCG as in the case of DUSP2 [13] . The structures of MKP-1 and DUSP2 are similar, with which they both contain a MAPK-interacting domain and a phosphatase catalytic site. By contrast, other DUSP may have extra domains, e.g., PEST [6] . Here, we postulate that the function of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling is similar to that of the DUSP2/PAC1.
Actually, the discovery of DUSP2 has initially created some paradoxical questions. As described, DUSP2 behaves differently from other MKP family members [13] . In DUSP2 KO macrophages treated with LPS, they produced less inflammatory mediators including less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, and IL-12-producing cells, when compared to that of the wild type counterparts [13] . Indeed, the results of these published studies on DUSP2 studies are quite similar to that of our reported results here.
It is plausible that these unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 were due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . It was shown that there are interactions between JNK and ERK1/2 pathways [16] .
Here, we showed that the sustained activation of JNK blocks ERK activation ( Figure 6 ). In the DUSP2 situation, stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages shows increased phosphorylation of JNK, and inhibition of JNK by its own specific inhibitor restores phosphorylation of ERK1/2 [13] .
In the BCG-MKP-1 situation, there is an early phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Therefore, it is possible that JNK may play a role in the crosstalk interaction of MAPK. However, our preliminary data suggest that the level of phosphorylated JNK was not increased in PBMo MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection Figure 6 MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. LPS model was provided according to literature findings (Left). In this scenario, LPS activates MKP-1, which in turn dephosphorylates and deactivates phospho-p38 MAPK, resulting in less TNF-α induction. However, the situation in DHP-HSA activation of DUSP2 is more complicated (Middle), since the phosphatase activity causes subsequent inhibition of phospho-JNK which leads to the derepression of phospho-p38 MAPK. Consequently, the combined effects of this cascade results in more TNF-α expression. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 (Right) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case (Right), there was an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, and the unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation leading to more TNF-α induction. The details and kinase targets are yet to be identified. transfected with MKP-1 siRNA (data not shown). Thus, the details of the crosstalk between MAPKs need further investigation. Here, we present a model to summarize the results and to hypothesize the existence of an as yet unidentified intermediary factor or factors in the pathways downstream of MKP-1 effects in the BCG-induced signaling cascade. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 ( Figure 6 ) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case, BCG induces MKP-1 expression while also activates MAPKs including p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Downstream of MKP-1, there is an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases. The unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, which ultimately leads to more TNF-α induction ( Figure 6 ).
In summary, MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. Inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, which in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, may be used to explain the novel function of MKP-1 in enhancing MAPK activity and consequent TNF-α expression following BCG treatment ( Figure 6 ). Taken together, the role of MAPK crosstalks need further exploration. (3) TNF-α, 30 cycles (TM = 56°C), upstream, 5'-GGCTCCAGGCGGTGCTTGTTC-3', downstream, 5'-AGACGGCGATGCGGCTGATG-3'. PCR products were analyzed on a 1% agarose gel with ethidium bromide and visualized under ultraviolet light. In order to check the size of the PCR products, 1 kb Plus DNA Lad-der™ (Invitrogen, USA) was run along with the PCR products.
To perform QPCR, the levels of MKP-1, and TNF-α mRNA as well as the reference gene GAPDH (as internal control) were assayed by the gene-specific Assays-on-Demand reagent kits (Applied Biosystems, USA). All samples were run in duplicates or triplicates and with no template controls on an ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detector. The analysis method of QPCR was the comparative cycle number to threshold (C T ) method as described in user bulletin no. 2 of the ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detection System. The number of C T of the targeted genes was normalized to that of GAPDH in each sample (ΔC T ). The C T value of the treated cells was compared with that of the untreated or mock-treated cells (ΔΔCT). The relative gene expression of the targeted genes (fold induction) was calculated as 2 -ΔΔCT .
Total cellular proteins were extracted by lysing cells in lysis buffer containing 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA (pH 8.0), 1% SDS, 0.2 mg/ml PMSF, 1 μg/ml aprotinin, 1 mM sodium orthovanadate, 2 μg/ml pepstatin, 2 μg/ml leupeptin, and 50 mM sodium fluoride for 5 minutes. The homogenate was then boiled for 10 minutes and stored at -70°C until use. The concentrations of total protein in cell extracts were determined by BCA™ Protein Assay Kit (Pierce, IL, USA).
Western blot was done as described [20] . Equal amounts of protein were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE, electroblotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (Schleicher & Schuell), and followed by probing with specific antibod-ies for Actin, MKP-1 (Santa Cruz Biotech., USA), phospho-p38 MAPK, phospho-ERK1/2 (Cell Signaling, USA). After three washes, the membranes were incubated with the corresponding secondary antibodies. The bands were detected using the Enhanced Chemiluminescence System (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) as per the manufacturer's instructions.
Transfection of siRNA into human monocytes was done as described [21] . MKP-1 siRNA included (i) MKP1-HSS102982, AAACGCUUCGUAUCCUCCUUUGAGG; (ii) MKP1-HSS102983, UUAUGCCCAAGGCAUCCAG-CAUGUC; and (iii) MKP1-HSS102984, UGAUG-GAGUCUAUGAAGUCAAUGGC. MKP-1 knockdown in PBMo was conducted by using MKP1-HSS102983 only or a pool of the above three different MKP-1 Stealth™ Select RNAi (ratio = 1:1:1, 200 nM, Invitrogen, USA). Stealth™ RNAi Negative Control Duplex (200 nM) was used as a control for sequence independent effects for the siRNA transfection. Transfection of monocytes was done by using jetPEI™ DNA transfection reagent (Polyplus Transfection, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After transfecting the cells for 24 h, the transfectants were treated with different inducers as described above.
Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t test. Differences were considered statistically significant when p values were less than 0.05. | How is MAPK activated? | {
"answer_start": [
3416
],
"text": [
"phosphorylation"
]
} | false |
895 | A novel anti-mycobacterial function of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804704/
SHA: f6ed1f1e9999e57793addb1c9c54f61c7861a995
Authors: Cheung, Benny KW; Yim, Howard CH; Lee, Norris CM; Lau, Allan SY
Date: 2009-12-17
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2172-10-64
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. To combat against this pathogen, immune cells release cytokines including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which is pivotal in the development of protective granulomas. Our previous results showed that Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG), a mycobacterium used as a model to investigate the immune response against MTB, stimulates the induction of TNF-α via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) in human blood monocytes. Since MAPK phosphatase-1 (MKP-1) is known to regulate MAPK activities, we examined whether MKP-1 plays a role in BCG-induced MAPK activation and cytokine expression. RESULTS: Primary human blood monocytes were treated with BCG and assayed for MKP-1 expression. Our results demonstrated that following exposure to BCG, there was an increase in the expression of MKP-1. Additionally, the induction of MKP-1 was regulated by p38 MAPK and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2). Surprisingly, when MKP-1 expression was blocked by its specific siRNA, there was a significant decrease in the levels of phospho-MAPK (p38 MAPK and ERK1/2) and TNF-α inducible by BCG. CONCLUSIONS: Since TNF-α is pivotal in granuloma formation, the results indicated an unexpected positive function of MKP-1 against mycobacterial infection as opposed to its usual phosphatase activity.
Text: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world, especially in the developing countries [1] . The disease is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and approximately one third of the world's population has been infected by this pathogen. In a recent report, World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that there are 9.2 million new TB cases around the world in 2006 [1] .
In response to MTB infection, induction of cytokines by immune cells is an important defense mechanism. The infected macrophages secrete intercellular signaling factors, proinflammatory cytokines, to mediate the inflammatory response leading to the formation of granuloma and induction of T-cell mediated immunity [2] . In order to understand TB pathogenesis, signaling pathways induced by mycobacteria have long been a subject of interest. Mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPKs) including extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), p38 MAPK, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) have been implicated as important cellular signaling molecules activated by mycobacteria [3] . Previous reports have shown that p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 are required in the induction of TNF-α expression in human monocytes infected with M. tuberculosis H37Rv [4] . We have further revealed the significant role of MAPKs in the signal transduction events of mycobacterial activation of primary human blood monocytes (PBMo) leading to cytokine expressions via the interaction with PKR [5] . However, the subsequent events as to how MAPK is regulated and how such regulation affects cytokine production in response to mycobacteria remain to be elucidated.
Since MAPKs are activated by phosphorylation, dephosphorylation of MAPKs seems to be an efficient process to inactivate their activities. It can be achieved by specific protein kinase phosphatases which can remove the phosphate group from MAPKs. Examples of these phosphatases include tyrosine phosphatases, serine/threonine phosphatases, and dual-specificity phosphatases (DUSPs). Some DUSPs are also known as MAPK phosphatases (MKPs) [6] [7] [8] . Currently, there are at least 10 MKPs identified, while MKP-1 is the most studied member of the family. The regulatory role of MKP-1 on cytokine induction is best demonstrated by MKP-1 knockout (KO) macrophages in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria. MKP-1 KO macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α in response to LPS treatment [9] . Consistent with these results, another group further revealed that LPS-treated MKP-1 KO bone marrow-derived macrophages show increased AP-1 DNA-binding activity [10] . Also, they showed that LPS-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88) and TIR domain-containing adaptor inducing IFN-β (TRIF) [10] , thus demonstrating the role of MKP-1 in signal transduction.
Not only LPS, other TLR inducers including CpG, peptidoglycan, poly IC, and Pam 3 Cys can regulate cytokine expressions including TNF-α, IL-10 via MKP-1 activities [10, 11] . In these processes, MKP-1 serves to mitigate the undesirable effects of septic shock and maintain organ functions by restraining the inflammatory responses following bacterial infection. Another example of MKP-1 function is the immune response to Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a Gram positive bacteria. There are higher levels of cytokine production including TNF-α, IL-6, and MIP-1α in MKP-1 KO mice infected with S. aureus [12] . Also, the mice would have a rapid development of multiorgan dysfunction as well as faster mortality rate upon challenge with heat-killed S. aureus [12] . Taken together, these results suggest that MKP-1 protects the host from overactivation of the immune system in response to Gram negative or Gram positive bacteria.
In the past, it was believed that different MKP/DUSP family members have overlapping functions. However, the emergence of DUSP2 turned the concept up side down [13] . It was shown that DUSP2 behaves differently and is opposite to the function as stated above. In DUSP2 KO cells, they produced less inflammatory mediators, implying that DUSP2 may play a role in mediating instead of limiting inflammation. For instances, when DUSP2 KO macrophages were treated with LPS, there were less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, IL-12-producing cells when compared to those of the wild type counterparts [13] . When the DUSP2 KO bone marrow-derived mast cells were first sensitized with immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor (FcεRI) and then stimulated with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen, they produced lower TNF mRNA levels, diminished IL-6 production, less phosphorylation of ERK1/2, p38 MAPK, and less transcriptional activities by Elk1 and NFAT-AP-1 [13] .
These unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 have been hypothesized to be due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . Stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages showed increases in phosphorylation of JNK. Moreover, inhibition of JNK by small molecule inhibitors showed increases in phosphorylation of ERK [13] . The authors also showed that there were physical interactions of DUSP2 with ERK2, DUSP2 with JNK2, as well as DUSP2 and p38 MAPK after stimulation of the cells with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen. Nevertheless, the details of the crosstalks between MAPKs and phosphatases need further investigation. Thus, the MKP family plays a critical role in the regulation of immune responses.
Innate immune response protects the host from MTB infection by secretion of cytokines including TNF-α in immune cells. Meanwhile, MAPK is one of the critical proteins in the regulation of immunity and cytokine expression. Since MAPK is regulated by MKP-1 in response to LPS and the activation of MAPK is important in BCGinduced cytokine expression, we hypothesize that MKP-1 plays a critical role in the immune regulation of BCG in human monocytes. We examined the involvement of MKP-1 in BCG-induced MAPK activation and its consequent cytokine expression. Here, we present evidences that MKP-1 plays an unexpected role in the regulation of cytokine induction by BCG through its control of MAPK phosphorylation.
It has been reported that many inducers including growth factors, LPS, peptidoglycan, and dexamethasone can stimulate the expression of MKP-1 in human macrophages, microglia, mast cells or fibroblasts [6] . To investigate the role of different TLR inducers in MKP-1 induction process in human blood monocytes, the level of MKP-1 mRNA was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) method. PBMo were isolated from primary human blood mononuclear cells and stimulated with Pam 3 Cys (TLR2 agonist), poly IC (TLR3 agonist), or LPS (TLR4 agonist) for 1 and 3 hours. Following exposure to Pam 3 Cys or LPS, there were significant inductions of MKP-1 mRNA levels within 1 hour of treatment ( Figure 1A ). These effects on MKP-1 induction continued for 3 hours post-treatment with Pam 3 Cys ( Figure 1A ). In contrast, poly IC did not induce MKP-1 ( Figure 1A ). The results indicate that different inducers showed differential up-regulation of MKP-1 expression.
LPS has been extensively used to demonstrate the role of MKP-1 in immune response both in vivo and in vitro [9, 12] . To establish a foundation for interpretation of subsequent experimental results, LPS was used as a positive control for the induction of MKP-1 expression. To determine the levels of MKP-1 in response to LPS, kinetics of MKP-1 transcription were determined by QPCR. There was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA, which peaked as early as 1 hour upon LPS stimulation, and the levels gradually decreased over a course of 6 hours. These results showed that LPS induced MKP-1 expression (Figure 1B) .
Next, to demonstrate the induction of specific phosphatases by BCG, kinetics of MKP-1 expression in PBMo was studied by using QPCR during BCG treatment. Similar to the results produced by LPS, upon the addition of BCG (MOI = 1 CFU/cell), there was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA within 1 hour of BCG treatment as determined by Taqman probe specific for MKP-1 ( Figure 2A ). The effects lasted for at least 6 hours ( Figure 2A ).
To examine whether the changes of protein production were in parallel to that of the mRNA levels, the protein levels of MKP-1 were measured by Western blotting. In response to BCG, PBMo produced the MKP-1 protein as early as 30 minutes after treatment. The protein levels were maintained for 2 hours and dropped to basal levels at 3 hours ( Figure 2B ). The results demonstrated that there was MKP-1 induction in response to BCG activation in human monocytes.
It has been shown that inhibition of p38 MAPK either by specific inhibitor or siRNA reduced the expression of MKP-1 in LPS-or peptidoglycan-treated macrophages [14] . To determine the mechanisms involved in the BCGinduced MKP-1 expression, PBMo were pretreated with several inhibitors including PD98059 (inhibitor for MAP kinase kinase [MEK] or ERK1/2), SB203580 (inhibitor for p38 MAPK), SP600125 (inhibitor for JNK), and CAPE (inhibitor for NF-κB) for 1 hour. A range of concentrations of each inhibitor was used to test their optimal concentrations and effects on cell viability and kinase inhibitions. BCG was added afterwards and total RNA was harvested. The results demonstrated that, with the inhibition of ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK activities by their corresponding relatively specific inhibitors, MKP-1 expressions were significantly reduced ( Figure 3 ). In addition, using higher dose of SB203580, we showed that the inhibition is increased further (data not shown). On the contrary, pretreatment of the cells with CAPE and SP600125 did not affect the induction of MKP-1 by BCG ( Figure 3 ). These results suggest that BCG-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2.
Throughout the above experiments, the primary goal was to examine the induction of MKP-1 by BCG in human monocytes. Thus, to further examine the role of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling, transfection of siRNA into PBMo was used to knockdown the activity of MKP-1. To demonstrate that the MKP-1 siRNA can indeed knockdown the target gene, PBMo were first transfected with control or MKP-1 siRNA and then treated with BCG for 3 hours. Levels of MKP-1 mRNA were measured by RT-PCR method.
In Figure 4A , BCG stimulated MKP-1 expression (lanes 1 and 2). In MKP-1 siRNA transfected monocytes, induction of MKP-1 by BCG was significantly decreased (lanes 2 and 4). The results showed that the siRNA does abrogate the levels of MKP-1 mRNA.
To further determine whether MKP-1 siRNA affects BCGinduced MKP-1 at protein levels, PBMo were treated as above and MKP-1 proteins were measured by Western blotting. The results showed that BCG could induce MKP-1 proteins as usual for cells transfected with control siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 1-3). However, the levels of BCGinduced MKP-1 protein expression were reduced in cells transfected with MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 4-6). Together, the results suggest that MKP-1 siRNA not only reduced the MKP-1 mRNA in BCG treatment but also abrogated the BCG-induced MKP-1 protein.
As stated in the literature [9] , MKP-1 KO mice showed increased TNF-α production in response to LPS. On the basis of the above MKP-1 siRNA results, LPS was then used as a control to demonstrate the effects of this MKP-1 siRNA system. cytokine expression induced by LPS in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells suggest that the siRNA system is effective in knocking down the MKP-1 expression and MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced TNF-α expression.
To investigate the effect of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced cytokine expression, the levels of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA were measured by QPCR method. PBMo were transfected with either control or MKP-1 siRNA. Following exposure to BCG with control siRNA, there were significant inductions of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA levels for 3 hours after treatment as previously reported ( [5] and data not shown). Next, the effects of MKP-1 siRNA were examined on the cytokine expression induced by BCG. Surprisingly, there was a significant abrogation of BCGinduced TNF-α expression by MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4D ). With the knockdown of MKP-1, the level of BCG-induced TNF-α was only 60% compared to that of the control cells, while BCG-induced IL-6 and IL-10 were unchanged in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells. The results revealed that MKP-1 plays a role in the induction of TNF-α expression upon BCG stimulation, which may be different from that of its conventional functions in which MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced signaling pathways [7] .
The unexpected observations in cytokine expression lead to the investigation on the effects of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced MAPK activation. MKP-1 was found to have a preferential substrate binding to p38 MAPK and JNK than ERK1/2 [7] . The phosphorylation status of MAPKs was assessed in control or MKP-1 siRNA transfected PBMo. Western blotting results demonstrated that BCGinduced both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 phosphorylation in 15 minutes (data not shown) and peaked at 30 minutes, and then returned to basal levels in cells treated with the control siRNA ( Figure 5 ). Similar to the results of cytokine expression, phosphorylation of both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 in response to BCG was decreased in monocytes transfected with MKP-1 siRNA instead of the expected increase in phosphorylation ( Figure 5 ). The results suggest that MKP-1 knockdown would result in reduced MAPK phosphorylation by BCG, implying that the reduced level of TNF-α production in BCG stimulated monocytes is due to reduced phosphorylation of MAPKs by MKP-1 siRNA.
This report presented evidences that a novel function of MKP-1 is uncovered in cytokine regulation in response to mycobacterial infection. BCG induces MKP-1 as a rapid response (Figure 2) . The induction mechanism of MKP-1 by BCG is dependent on both ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK ( Figure 3 ). Using siRNA approach, the functions of MKP-1 can be examined in primary human monocytes. The results showed that the BCG-induced MAPKs activation as well as cytokine expression are downstream of MKP-1 ( Figures 4D and 5) . Thus, MKP-1 is a critical signaling molecule that is involved in BCG-induced cytokine expression.
Previous reports have shown that MKP-1 induced by LPS or peptidoglycan is dependent on p38 MAPK [14] . Accordingly, BCG-induced MKP-1 can be inhibited by both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 inhibitors. Interestingly, it has been shown that degradation of MKP-1 is reduced after ERK1/2 phosphorylation [15] . It can be hypothesized that BCG-induced MKP-1 proteins can be stabilized by ERK1/2 and the detailed mechanisms involved require more exploration. Also, since the inhibition of MKP-1 expression by both inhibitors (for p38 MAPK and ERK1/ 2) was not complete, it is believed that other proteins may be involved in the BCG-induced MKP-1 expression.
On the basis of the literature results on LPS effects ( Figure 6 ), the original expectation for this project is that MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator. LPS-stimulated MKP-1 KO peritoneal macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α [9] . In doing so, LPS-induced MKP-1 could BCG-induced MAPK phosphorylation is decreased by MKP-1 siRNA prevent prolonged TNF-α production as in sepsis which may lead to severe damage to the host. It was expected that BCG induces MKP-1 and its induction would correlate with the dephosphorylation of MAPKs including p38 MAPK. By blocking the MKP-1 using siRNA, it was expected to have increased p38 MAPK phosphorylation and prolonged TNF-α production in response to BCG. Nevertheless, our results shown here are diametrically opposite. One possibility for the unexpected results may be due to non-specific effects of transfection or siRNA. However, this was not the case since there was a prolonged and increased TNF-α expression after the MKP-1 siRNA-transfected monocytes were treated with LPS (Figure 4C ).
There is now a new hypothesis to explain such paradoxical effects of MKP-1 in TNF-α regulation in which the phosphatase plays a role in positive regulation of TNF-α production in response to BCG as in the case of DUSP2 [13] . The structures of MKP-1 and DUSP2 are similar, with which they both contain a MAPK-interacting domain and a phosphatase catalytic site. By contrast, other DUSP may have extra domains, e.g., PEST [6] . Here, we postulate that the function of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling is similar to that of the DUSP2/PAC1.
Actually, the discovery of DUSP2 has initially created some paradoxical questions. As described, DUSP2 behaves differently from other MKP family members [13] . In DUSP2 KO macrophages treated with LPS, they produced less inflammatory mediators including less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, and IL-12-producing cells, when compared to that of the wild type counterparts [13] . Indeed, the results of these published studies on DUSP2 studies are quite similar to that of our reported results here.
It is plausible that these unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 were due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . It was shown that there are interactions between JNK and ERK1/2 pathways [16] .
Here, we showed that the sustained activation of JNK blocks ERK activation ( Figure 6 ). In the DUSP2 situation, stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages shows increased phosphorylation of JNK, and inhibition of JNK by its own specific inhibitor restores phosphorylation of ERK1/2 [13] .
In the BCG-MKP-1 situation, there is an early phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Therefore, it is possible that JNK may play a role in the crosstalk interaction of MAPK. However, our preliminary data suggest that the level of phosphorylated JNK was not increased in PBMo MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection Figure 6 MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. LPS model was provided according to literature findings (Left). In this scenario, LPS activates MKP-1, which in turn dephosphorylates and deactivates phospho-p38 MAPK, resulting in less TNF-α induction. However, the situation in DHP-HSA activation of DUSP2 is more complicated (Middle), since the phosphatase activity causes subsequent inhibition of phospho-JNK which leads to the derepression of phospho-p38 MAPK. Consequently, the combined effects of this cascade results in more TNF-α expression. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 (Right) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case (Right), there was an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, and the unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation leading to more TNF-α induction. The details and kinase targets are yet to be identified. transfected with MKP-1 siRNA (data not shown). Thus, the details of the crosstalk between MAPKs need further investigation. Here, we present a model to summarize the results and to hypothesize the existence of an as yet unidentified intermediary factor or factors in the pathways downstream of MKP-1 effects in the BCG-induced signaling cascade. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 ( Figure 6 ) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case, BCG induces MKP-1 expression while also activates MAPKs including p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Downstream of MKP-1, there is an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases. The unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, which ultimately leads to more TNF-α induction ( Figure 6 ).
In summary, MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. Inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, which in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, may be used to explain the novel function of MKP-1 in enhancing MAPK activity and consequent TNF-α expression following BCG treatment ( Figure 6 ). Taken together, the role of MAPK crosstalks need further exploration. (3) TNF-α, 30 cycles (TM = 56°C), upstream, 5'-GGCTCCAGGCGGTGCTTGTTC-3', downstream, 5'-AGACGGCGATGCGGCTGATG-3'. PCR products were analyzed on a 1% agarose gel with ethidium bromide and visualized under ultraviolet light. In order to check the size of the PCR products, 1 kb Plus DNA Lad-der™ (Invitrogen, USA) was run along with the PCR products.
To perform QPCR, the levels of MKP-1, and TNF-α mRNA as well as the reference gene GAPDH (as internal control) were assayed by the gene-specific Assays-on-Demand reagent kits (Applied Biosystems, USA). All samples were run in duplicates or triplicates and with no template controls on an ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detector. The analysis method of QPCR was the comparative cycle number to threshold (C T ) method as described in user bulletin no. 2 of the ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detection System. The number of C T of the targeted genes was normalized to that of GAPDH in each sample (ΔC T ). The C T value of the treated cells was compared with that of the untreated or mock-treated cells (ΔΔCT). The relative gene expression of the targeted genes (fold induction) was calculated as 2 -ΔΔCT .
Total cellular proteins were extracted by lysing cells in lysis buffer containing 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA (pH 8.0), 1% SDS, 0.2 mg/ml PMSF, 1 μg/ml aprotinin, 1 mM sodium orthovanadate, 2 μg/ml pepstatin, 2 μg/ml leupeptin, and 50 mM sodium fluoride for 5 minutes. The homogenate was then boiled for 10 minutes and stored at -70°C until use. The concentrations of total protein in cell extracts were determined by BCA™ Protein Assay Kit (Pierce, IL, USA).
Western blot was done as described [20] . Equal amounts of protein were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE, electroblotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (Schleicher & Schuell), and followed by probing with specific antibod-ies for Actin, MKP-1 (Santa Cruz Biotech., USA), phospho-p38 MAPK, phospho-ERK1/2 (Cell Signaling, USA). After three washes, the membranes were incubated with the corresponding secondary antibodies. The bands were detected using the Enhanced Chemiluminescence System (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) as per the manufacturer's instructions.
Transfection of siRNA into human monocytes was done as described [21] . MKP-1 siRNA included (i) MKP1-HSS102982, AAACGCUUCGUAUCCUCCUUUGAGG; (ii) MKP1-HSS102983, UUAUGCCCAAGGCAUCCAG-CAUGUC; and (iii) MKP1-HSS102984, UGAUG-GAGUCUAUGAAGUCAAUGGC. MKP-1 knockdown in PBMo was conducted by using MKP1-HSS102983 only or a pool of the above three different MKP-1 Stealth™ Select RNAi (ratio = 1:1:1, 200 nM, Invitrogen, USA). Stealth™ RNAi Negative Control Duplex (200 nM) was used as a control for sequence independent effects for the siRNA transfection. Transfection of monocytes was done by using jetPEI™ DNA transfection reagent (Polyplus Transfection, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After transfecting the cells for 24 h, the transfectants were treated with different inducers as described above.
Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t test. Differences were considered statistically significant when p values were less than 0.05. | What enzymes are involved with phosphorylation? | {
"answer_start": [
3672
],
"text": [
"tyrosine phosphatases, serine/threonine phosphatases, and dual-specificity phosphatases (DUSPs)"
]
} | false |
896 | A novel anti-mycobacterial function of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804704/
SHA: f6ed1f1e9999e57793addb1c9c54f61c7861a995
Authors: Cheung, Benny KW; Yim, Howard CH; Lee, Norris CM; Lau, Allan SY
Date: 2009-12-17
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2172-10-64
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. To combat against this pathogen, immune cells release cytokines including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which is pivotal in the development of protective granulomas. Our previous results showed that Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG), a mycobacterium used as a model to investigate the immune response against MTB, stimulates the induction of TNF-α via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) in human blood monocytes. Since MAPK phosphatase-1 (MKP-1) is known to regulate MAPK activities, we examined whether MKP-1 plays a role in BCG-induced MAPK activation and cytokine expression. RESULTS: Primary human blood monocytes were treated with BCG and assayed for MKP-1 expression. Our results demonstrated that following exposure to BCG, there was an increase in the expression of MKP-1. Additionally, the induction of MKP-1 was regulated by p38 MAPK and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2). Surprisingly, when MKP-1 expression was blocked by its specific siRNA, there was a significant decrease in the levels of phospho-MAPK (p38 MAPK and ERK1/2) and TNF-α inducible by BCG. CONCLUSIONS: Since TNF-α is pivotal in granuloma formation, the results indicated an unexpected positive function of MKP-1 against mycobacterial infection as opposed to its usual phosphatase activity.
Text: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world, especially in the developing countries [1] . The disease is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and approximately one third of the world's population has been infected by this pathogen. In a recent report, World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that there are 9.2 million new TB cases around the world in 2006 [1] .
In response to MTB infection, induction of cytokines by immune cells is an important defense mechanism. The infected macrophages secrete intercellular signaling factors, proinflammatory cytokines, to mediate the inflammatory response leading to the formation of granuloma and induction of T-cell mediated immunity [2] . In order to understand TB pathogenesis, signaling pathways induced by mycobacteria have long been a subject of interest. Mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPKs) including extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), p38 MAPK, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) have been implicated as important cellular signaling molecules activated by mycobacteria [3] . Previous reports have shown that p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 are required in the induction of TNF-α expression in human monocytes infected with M. tuberculosis H37Rv [4] . We have further revealed the significant role of MAPKs in the signal transduction events of mycobacterial activation of primary human blood monocytes (PBMo) leading to cytokine expressions via the interaction with PKR [5] . However, the subsequent events as to how MAPK is regulated and how such regulation affects cytokine production in response to mycobacteria remain to be elucidated.
Since MAPKs are activated by phosphorylation, dephosphorylation of MAPKs seems to be an efficient process to inactivate their activities. It can be achieved by specific protein kinase phosphatases which can remove the phosphate group from MAPKs. Examples of these phosphatases include tyrosine phosphatases, serine/threonine phosphatases, and dual-specificity phosphatases (DUSPs). Some DUSPs are also known as MAPK phosphatases (MKPs) [6] [7] [8] . Currently, there are at least 10 MKPs identified, while MKP-1 is the most studied member of the family. The regulatory role of MKP-1 on cytokine induction is best demonstrated by MKP-1 knockout (KO) macrophages in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria. MKP-1 KO macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α in response to LPS treatment [9] . Consistent with these results, another group further revealed that LPS-treated MKP-1 KO bone marrow-derived macrophages show increased AP-1 DNA-binding activity [10] . Also, they showed that LPS-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88) and TIR domain-containing adaptor inducing IFN-β (TRIF) [10] , thus demonstrating the role of MKP-1 in signal transduction.
Not only LPS, other TLR inducers including CpG, peptidoglycan, poly IC, and Pam 3 Cys can regulate cytokine expressions including TNF-α, IL-10 via MKP-1 activities [10, 11] . In these processes, MKP-1 serves to mitigate the undesirable effects of septic shock and maintain organ functions by restraining the inflammatory responses following bacterial infection. Another example of MKP-1 function is the immune response to Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a Gram positive bacteria. There are higher levels of cytokine production including TNF-α, IL-6, and MIP-1α in MKP-1 KO mice infected with S. aureus [12] . Also, the mice would have a rapid development of multiorgan dysfunction as well as faster mortality rate upon challenge with heat-killed S. aureus [12] . Taken together, these results suggest that MKP-1 protects the host from overactivation of the immune system in response to Gram negative or Gram positive bacteria.
In the past, it was believed that different MKP/DUSP family members have overlapping functions. However, the emergence of DUSP2 turned the concept up side down [13] . It was shown that DUSP2 behaves differently and is opposite to the function as stated above. In DUSP2 KO cells, they produced less inflammatory mediators, implying that DUSP2 may play a role in mediating instead of limiting inflammation. For instances, when DUSP2 KO macrophages were treated with LPS, there were less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, IL-12-producing cells when compared to those of the wild type counterparts [13] . When the DUSP2 KO bone marrow-derived mast cells were first sensitized with immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor (FcεRI) and then stimulated with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen, they produced lower TNF mRNA levels, diminished IL-6 production, less phosphorylation of ERK1/2, p38 MAPK, and less transcriptional activities by Elk1 and NFAT-AP-1 [13] .
These unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 have been hypothesized to be due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . Stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages showed increases in phosphorylation of JNK. Moreover, inhibition of JNK by small molecule inhibitors showed increases in phosphorylation of ERK [13] . The authors also showed that there were physical interactions of DUSP2 with ERK2, DUSP2 with JNK2, as well as DUSP2 and p38 MAPK after stimulation of the cells with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen. Nevertheless, the details of the crosstalks between MAPKs and phosphatases need further investigation. Thus, the MKP family plays a critical role in the regulation of immune responses.
Innate immune response protects the host from MTB infection by secretion of cytokines including TNF-α in immune cells. Meanwhile, MAPK is one of the critical proteins in the regulation of immunity and cytokine expression. Since MAPK is regulated by MKP-1 in response to LPS and the activation of MAPK is important in BCGinduced cytokine expression, we hypothesize that MKP-1 plays a critical role in the immune regulation of BCG in human monocytes. We examined the involvement of MKP-1 in BCG-induced MAPK activation and its consequent cytokine expression. Here, we present evidences that MKP-1 plays an unexpected role in the regulation of cytokine induction by BCG through its control of MAPK phosphorylation.
It has been reported that many inducers including growth factors, LPS, peptidoglycan, and dexamethasone can stimulate the expression of MKP-1 in human macrophages, microglia, mast cells or fibroblasts [6] . To investigate the role of different TLR inducers in MKP-1 induction process in human blood monocytes, the level of MKP-1 mRNA was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) method. PBMo were isolated from primary human blood mononuclear cells and stimulated with Pam 3 Cys (TLR2 agonist), poly IC (TLR3 agonist), or LPS (TLR4 agonist) for 1 and 3 hours. Following exposure to Pam 3 Cys or LPS, there were significant inductions of MKP-1 mRNA levels within 1 hour of treatment ( Figure 1A ). These effects on MKP-1 induction continued for 3 hours post-treatment with Pam 3 Cys ( Figure 1A ). In contrast, poly IC did not induce MKP-1 ( Figure 1A ). The results indicate that different inducers showed differential up-regulation of MKP-1 expression.
LPS has been extensively used to demonstrate the role of MKP-1 in immune response both in vivo and in vitro [9, 12] . To establish a foundation for interpretation of subsequent experimental results, LPS was used as a positive control for the induction of MKP-1 expression. To determine the levels of MKP-1 in response to LPS, kinetics of MKP-1 transcription were determined by QPCR. There was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA, which peaked as early as 1 hour upon LPS stimulation, and the levels gradually decreased over a course of 6 hours. These results showed that LPS induced MKP-1 expression (Figure 1B) .
Next, to demonstrate the induction of specific phosphatases by BCG, kinetics of MKP-1 expression in PBMo was studied by using QPCR during BCG treatment. Similar to the results produced by LPS, upon the addition of BCG (MOI = 1 CFU/cell), there was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA within 1 hour of BCG treatment as determined by Taqman probe specific for MKP-1 ( Figure 2A ). The effects lasted for at least 6 hours ( Figure 2A ).
To examine whether the changes of protein production were in parallel to that of the mRNA levels, the protein levels of MKP-1 were measured by Western blotting. In response to BCG, PBMo produced the MKP-1 protein as early as 30 minutes after treatment. The protein levels were maintained for 2 hours and dropped to basal levels at 3 hours ( Figure 2B ). The results demonstrated that there was MKP-1 induction in response to BCG activation in human monocytes.
It has been shown that inhibition of p38 MAPK either by specific inhibitor or siRNA reduced the expression of MKP-1 in LPS-or peptidoglycan-treated macrophages [14] . To determine the mechanisms involved in the BCGinduced MKP-1 expression, PBMo were pretreated with several inhibitors including PD98059 (inhibitor for MAP kinase kinase [MEK] or ERK1/2), SB203580 (inhibitor for p38 MAPK), SP600125 (inhibitor for JNK), and CAPE (inhibitor for NF-κB) for 1 hour. A range of concentrations of each inhibitor was used to test their optimal concentrations and effects on cell viability and kinase inhibitions. BCG was added afterwards and total RNA was harvested. The results demonstrated that, with the inhibition of ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK activities by their corresponding relatively specific inhibitors, MKP-1 expressions were significantly reduced ( Figure 3 ). In addition, using higher dose of SB203580, we showed that the inhibition is increased further (data not shown). On the contrary, pretreatment of the cells with CAPE and SP600125 did not affect the induction of MKP-1 by BCG ( Figure 3 ). These results suggest that BCG-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2.
Throughout the above experiments, the primary goal was to examine the induction of MKP-1 by BCG in human monocytes. Thus, to further examine the role of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling, transfection of siRNA into PBMo was used to knockdown the activity of MKP-1. To demonstrate that the MKP-1 siRNA can indeed knockdown the target gene, PBMo were first transfected with control or MKP-1 siRNA and then treated with BCG for 3 hours. Levels of MKP-1 mRNA were measured by RT-PCR method.
In Figure 4A , BCG stimulated MKP-1 expression (lanes 1 and 2). In MKP-1 siRNA transfected monocytes, induction of MKP-1 by BCG was significantly decreased (lanes 2 and 4). The results showed that the siRNA does abrogate the levels of MKP-1 mRNA.
To further determine whether MKP-1 siRNA affects BCGinduced MKP-1 at protein levels, PBMo were treated as above and MKP-1 proteins were measured by Western blotting. The results showed that BCG could induce MKP-1 proteins as usual for cells transfected with control siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 1-3). However, the levels of BCGinduced MKP-1 protein expression were reduced in cells transfected with MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 4-6). Together, the results suggest that MKP-1 siRNA not only reduced the MKP-1 mRNA in BCG treatment but also abrogated the BCG-induced MKP-1 protein.
As stated in the literature [9] , MKP-1 KO mice showed increased TNF-α production in response to LPS. On the basis of the above MKP-1 siRNA results, LPS was then used as a control to demonstrate the effects of this MKP-1 siRNA system. cytokine expression induced by LPS in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells suggest that the siRNA system is effective in knocking down the MKP-1 expression and MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced TNF-α expression.
To investigate the effect of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced cytokine expression, the levels of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA were measured by QPCR method. PBMo were transfected with either control or MKP-1 siRNA. Following exposure to BCG with control siRNA, there were significant inductions of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA levels for 3 hours after treatment as previously reported ( [5] and data not shown). Next, the effects of MKP-1 siRNA were examined on the cytokine expression induced by BCG. Surprisingly, there was a significant abrogation of BCGinduced TNF-α expression by MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4D ). With the knockdown of MKP-1, the level of BCG-induced TNF-α was only 60% compared to that of the control cells, while BCG-induced IL-6 and IL-10 were unchanged in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells. The results revealed that MKP-1 plays a role in the induction of TNF-α expression upon BCG stimulation, which may be different from that of its conventional functions in which MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced signaling pathways [7] .
The unexpected observations in cytokine expression lead to the investigation on the effects of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced MAPK activation. MKP-1 was found to have a preferential substrate binding to p38 MAPK and JNK than ERK1/2 [7] . The phosphorylation status of MAPKs was assessed in control or MKP-1 siRNA transfected PBMo. Western blotting results demonstrated that BCGinduced both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 phosphorylation in 15 minutes (data not shown) and peaked at 30 minutes, and then returned to basal levels in cells treated with the control siRNA ( Figure 5 ). Similar to the results of cytokine expression, phosphorylation of both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 in response to BCG was decreased in monocytes transfected with MKP-1 siRNA instead of the expected increase in phosphorylation ( Figure 5 ). The results suggest that MKP-1 knockdown would result in reduced MAPK phosphorylation by BCG, implying that the reduced level of TNF-α production in BCG stimulated monocytes is due to reduced phosphorylation of MAPKs by MKP-1 siRNA.
This report presented evidences that a novel function of MKP-1 is uncovered in cytokine regulation in response to mycobacterial infection. BCG induces MKP-1 as a rapid response (Figure 2) . The induction mechanism of MKP-1 by BCG is dependent on both ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK ( Figure 3 ). Using siRNA approach, the functions of MKP-1 can be examined in primary human monocytes. The results showed that the BCG-induced MAPKs activation as well as cytokine expression are downstream of MKP-1 ( Figures 4D and 5) . Thus, MKP-1 is a critical signaling molecule that is involved in BCG-induced cytokine expression.
Previous reports have shown that MKP-1 induced by LPS or peptidoglycan is dependent on p38 MAPK [14] . Accordingly, BCG-induced MKP-1 can be inhibited by both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 inhibitors. Interestingly, it has been shown that degradation of MKP-1 is reduced after ERK1/2 phosphorylation [15] . It can be hypothesized that BCG-induced MKP-1 proteins can be stabilized by ERK1/2 and the detailed mechanisms involved require more exploration. Also, since the inhibition of MKP-1 expression by both inhibitors (for p38 MAPK and ERK1/ 2) was not complete, it is believed that other proteins may be involved in the BCG-induced MKP-1 expression.
On the basis of the literature results on LPS effects ( Figure 6 ), the original expectation for this project is that MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator. LPS-stimulated MKP-1 KO peritoneal macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α [9] . In doing so, LPS-induced MKP-1 could BCG-induced MAPK phosphorylation is decreased by MKP-1 siRNA prevent prolonged TNF-α production as in sepsis which may lead to severe damage to the host. It was expected that BCG induces MKP-1 and its induction would correlate with the dephosphorylation of MAPKs including p38 MAPK. By blocking the MKP-1 using siRNA, it was expected to have increased p38 MAPK phosphorylation and prolonged TNF-α production in response to BCG. Nevertheless, our results shown here are diametrically opposite. One possibility for the unexpected results may be due to non-specific effects of transfection or siRNA. However, this was not the case since there was a prolonged and increased TNF-α expression after the MKP-1 siRNA-transfected monocytes were treated with LPS (Figure 4C ).
There is now a new hypothesis to explain such paradoxical effects of MKP-1 in TNF-α regulation in which the phosphatase plays a role in positive regulation of TNF-α production in response to BCG as in the case of DUSP2 [13] . The structures of MKP-1 and DUSP2 are similar, with which they both contain a MAPK-interacting domain and a phosphatase catalytic site. By contrast, other DUSP may have extra domains, e.g., PEST [6] . Here, we postulate that the function of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling is similar to that of the DUSP2/PAC1.
Actually, the discovery of DUSP2 has initially created some paradoxical questions. As described, DUSP2 behaves differently from other MKP family members [13] . In DUSP2 KO macrophages treated with LPS, they produced less inflammatory mediators including less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, and IL-12-producing cells, when compared to that of the wild type counterparts [13] . Indeed, the results of these published studies on DUSP2 studies are quite similar to that of our reported results here.
It is plausible that these unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 were due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . It was shown that there are interactions between JNK and ERK1/2 pathways [16] .
Here, we showed that the sustained activation of JNK blocks ERK activation ( Figure 6 ). In the DUSP2 situation, stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages shows increased phosphorylation of JNK, and inhibition of JNK by its own specific inhibitor restores phosphorylation of ERK1/2 [13] .
In the BCG-MKP-1 situation, there is an early phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Therefore, it is possible that JNK may play a role in the crosstalk interaction of MAPK. However, our preliminary data suggest that the level of phosphorylated JNK was not increased in PBMo MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection Figure 6 MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. LPS model was provided according to literature findings (Left). In this scenario, LPS activates MKP-1, which in turn dephosphorylates and deactivates phospho-p38 MAPK, resulting in less TNF-α induction. However, the situation in DHP-HSA activation of DUSP2 is more complicated (Middle), since the phosphatase activity causes subsequent inhibition of phospho-JNK which leads to the derepression of phospho-p38 MAPK. Consequently, the combined effects of this cascade results in more TNF-α expression. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 (Right) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case (Right), there was an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, and the unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation leading to more TNF-α induction. The details and kinase targets are yet to be identified. transfected with MKP-1 siRNA (data not shown). Thus, the details of the crosstalk between MAPKs need further investigation. Here, we present a model to summarize the results and to hypothesize the existence of an as yet unidentified intermediary factor or factors in the pathways downstream of MKP-1 effects in the BCG-induced signaling cascade. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 ( Figure 6 ) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case, BCG induces MKP-1 expression while also activates MAPKs including p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Downstream of MKP-1, there is an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases. The unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, which ultimately leads to more TNF-α induction ( Figure 6 ).
In summary, MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. Inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, which in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, may be used to explain the novel function of MKP-1 in enhancing MAPK activity and consequent TNF-α expression following BCG treatment ( Figure 6 ). Taken together, the role of MAPK crosstalks need further exploration. (3) TNF-α, 30 cycles (TM = 56°C), upstream, 5'-GGCTCCAGGCGGTGCTTGTTC-3', downstream, 5'-AGACGGCGATGCGGCTGATG-3'. PCR products were analyzed on a 1% agarose gel with ethidium bromide and visualized under ultraviolet light. In order to check the size of the PCR products, 1 kb Plus DNA Lad-der™ (Invitrogen, USA) was run along with the PCR products.
To perform QPCR, the levels of MKP-1, and TNF-α mRNA as well as the reference gene GAPDH (as internal control) were assayed by the gene-specific Assays-on-Demand reagent kits (Applied Biosystems, USA). All samples were run in duplicates or triplicates and with no template controls on an ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detector. The analysis method of QPCR was the comparative cycle number to threshold (C T ) method as described in user bulletin no. 2 of the ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detection System. The number of C T of the targeted genes was normalized to that of GAPDH in each sample (ΔC T ). The C T value of the treated cells was compared with that of the untreated or mock-treated cells (ΔΔCT). The relative gene expression of the targeted genes (fold induction) was calculated as 2 -ΔΔCT .
Total cellular proteins were extracted by lysing cells in lysis buffer containing 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA (pH 8.0), 1% SDS, 0.2 mg/ml PMSF, 1 μg/ml aprotinin, 1 mM sodium orthovanadate, 2 μg/ml pepstatin, 2 μg/ml leupeptin, and 50 mM sodium fluoride for 5 minutes. The homogenate was then boiled for 10 minutes and stored at -70°C until use. The concentrations of total protein in cell extracts were determined by BCA™ Protein Assay Kit (Pierce, IL, USA).
Western blot was done as described [20] . Equal amounts of protein were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE, electroblotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (Schleicher & Schuell), and followed by probing with specific antibod-ies for Actin, MKP-1 (Santa Cruz Biotech., USA), phospho-p38 MAPK, phospho-ERK1/2 (Cell Signaling, USA). After three washes, the membranes were incubated with the corresponding secondary antibodies. The bands were detected using the Enhanced Chemiluminescence System (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) as per the manufacturer's instructions.
Transfection of siRNA into human monocytes was done as described [21] . MKP-1 siRNA included (i) MKP1-HSS102982, AAACGCUUCGUAUCCUCCUUUGAGG; (ii) MKP1-HSS102983, UUAUGCCCAAGGCAUCCAG-CAUGUC; and (iii) MKP1-HSS102984, UGAUG-GAGUCUAUGAAGUCAAUGGC. MKP-1 knockdown in PBMo was conducted by using MKP1-HSS102983 only or a pool of the above three different MKP-1 Stealth™ Select RNAi (ratio = 1:1:1, 200 nM, Invitrogen, USA). Stealth™ RNAi Negative Control Duplex (200 nM) was used as a control for sequence independent effects for the siRNA transfection. Transfection of monocytes was done by using jetPEI™ DNA transfection reagent (Polyplus Transfection, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After transfecting the cells for 24 h, the transfectants were treated with different inducers as described above.
Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t test. Differences were considered statistically significant when p values were less than 0.05. | How many MAPK phosphatases exist? | {
"answer_start": [
3858
],
"text": [
"at least 10"
]
} | false |
897 | A novel anti-mycobacterial function of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804704/
SHA: f6ed1f1e9999e57793addb1c9c54f61c7861a995
Authors: Cheung, Benny KW; Yim, Howard CH; Lee, Norris CM; Lau, Allan SY
Date: 2009-12-17
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2172-10-64
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. To combat against this pathogen, immune cells release cytokines including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which is pivotal in the development of protective granulomas. Our previous results showed that Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG), a mycobacterium used as a model to investigate the immune response against MTB, stimulates the induction of TNF-α via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) in human blood monocytes. Since MAPK phosphatase-1 (MKP-1) is known to regulate MAPK activities, we examined whether MKP-1 plays a role in BCG-induced MAPK activation and cytokine expression. RESULTS: Primary human blood monocytes were treated with BCG and assayed for MKP-1 expression. Our results demonstrated that following exposure to BCG, there was an increase in the expression of MKP-1. Additionally, the induction of MKP-1 was regulated by p38 MAPK and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2). Surprisingly, when MKP-1 expression was blocked by its specific siRNA, there was a significant decrease in the levels of phospho-MAPK (p38 MAPK and ERK1/2) and TNF-α inducible by BCG. CONCLUSIONS: Since TNF-α is pivotal in granuloma formation, the results indicated an unexpected positive function of MKP-1 against mycobacterial infection as opposed to its usual phosphatase activity.
Text: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world, especially in the developing countries [1] . The disease is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and approximately one third of the world's population has been infected by this pathogen. In a recent report, World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that there are 9.2 million new TB cases around the world in 2006 [1] .
In response to MTB infection, induction of cytokines by immune cells is an important defense mechanism. The infected macrophages secrete intercellular signaling factors, proinflammatory cytokines, to mediate the inflammatory response leading to the formation of granuloma and induction of T-cell mediated immunity [2] . In order to understand TB pathogenesis, signaling pathways induced by mycobacteria have long been a subject of interest. Mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPKs) including extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), p38 MAPK, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) have been implicated as important cellular signaling molecules activated by mycobacteria [3] . Previous reports have shown that p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 are required in the induction of TNF-α expression in human monocytes infected with M. tuberculosis H37Rv [4] . We have further revealed the significant role of MAPKs in the signal transduction events of mycobacterial activation of primary human blood monocytes (PBMo) leading to cytokine expressions via the interaction with PKR [5] . However, the subsequent events as to how MAPK is regulated and how such regulation affects cytokine production in response to mycobacteria remain to be elucidated.
Since MAPKs are activated by phosphorylation, dephosphorylation of MAPKs seems to be an efficient process to inactivate their activities. It can be achieved by specific protein kinase phosphatases which can remove the phosphate group from MAPKs. Examples of these phosphatases include tyrosine phosphatases, serine/threonine phosphatases, and dual-specificity phosphatases (DUSPs). Some DUSPs are also known as MAPK phosphatases (MKPs) [6] [7] [8] . Currently, there are at least 10 MKPs identified, while MKP-1 is the most studied member of the family. The regulatory role of MKP-1 on cytokine induction is best demonstrated by MKP-1 knockout (KO) macrophages in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria. MKP-1 KO macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α in response to LPS treatment [9] . Consistent with these results, another group further revealed that LPS-treated MKP-1 KO bone marrow-derived macrophages show increased AP-1 DNA-binding activity [10] . Also, they showed that LPS-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88) and TIR domain-containing adaptor inducing IFN-β (TRIF) [10] , thus demonstrating the role of MKP-1 in signal transduction.
Not only LPS, other TLR inducers including CpG, peptidoglycan, poly IC, and Pam 3 Cys can regulate cytokine expressions including TNF-α, IL-10 via MKP-1 activities [10, 11] . In these processes, MKP-1 serves to mitigate the undesirable effects of septic shock and maintain organ functions by restraining the inflammatory responses following bacterial infection. Another example of MKP-1 function is the immune response to Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a Gram positive bacteria. There are higher levels of cytokine production including TNF-α, IL-6, and MIP-1α in MKP-1 KO mice infected with S. aureus [12] . Also, the mice would have a rapid development of multiorgan dysfunction as well as faster mortality rate upon challenge with heat-killed S. aureus [12] . Taken together, these results suggest that MKP-1 protects the host from overactivation of the immune system in response to Gram negative or Gram positive bacteria.
In the past, it was believed that different MKP/DUSP family members have overlapping functions. However, the emergence of DUSP2 turned the concept up side down [13] . It was shown that DUSP2 behaves differently and is opposite to the function as stated above. In DUSP2 KO cells, they produced less inflammatory mediators, implying that DUSP2 may play a role in mediating instead of limiting inflammation. For instances, when DUSP2 KO macrophages were treated with LPS, there were less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, IL-12-producing cells when compared to those of the wild type counterparts [13] . When the DUSP2 KO bone marrow-derived mast cells were first sensitized with immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor (FcεRI) and then stimulated with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen, they produced lower TNF mRNA levels, diminished IL-6 production, less phosphorylation of ERK1/2, p38 MAPK, and less transcriptional activities by Elk1 and NFAT-AP-1 [13] .
These unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 have been hypothesized to be due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . Stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages showed increases in phosphorylation of JNK. Moreover, inhibition of JNK by small molecule inhibitors showed increases in phosphorylation of ERK [13] . The authors also showed that there were physical interactions of DUSP2 with ERK2, DUSP2 with JNK2, as well as DUSP2 and p38 MAPK after stimulation of the cells with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen. Nevertheless, the details of the crosstalks between MAPKs and phosphatases need further investigation. Thus, the MKP family plays a critical role in the regulation of immune responses.
Innate immune response protects the host from MTB infection by secretion of cytokines including TNF-α in immune cells. Meanwhile, MAPK is one of the critical proteins in the regulation of immunity and cytokine expression. Since MAPK is regulated by MKP-1 in response to LPS and the activation of MAPK is important in BCGinduced cytokine expression, we hypothesize that MKP-1 plays a critical role in the immune regulation of BCG in human monocytes. We examined the involvement of MKP-1 in BCG-induced MAPK activation and its consequent cytokine expression. Here, we present evidences that MKP-1 plays an unexpected role in the regulation of cytokine induction by BCG through its control of MAPK phosphorylation.
It has been reported that many inducers including growth factors, LPS, peptidoglycan, and dexamethasone can stimulate the expression of MKP-1 in human macrophages, microglia, mast cells or fibroblasts [6] . To investigate the role of different TLR inducers in MKP-1 induction process in human blood monocytes, the level of MKP-1 mRNA was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) method. PBMo were isolated from primary human blood mononuclear cells and stimulated with Pam 3 Cys (TLR2 agonist), poly IC (TLR3 agonist), or LPS (TLR4 agonist) for 1 and 3 hours. Following exposure to Pam 3 Cys or LPS, there were significant inductions of MKP-1 mRNA levels within 1 hour of treatment ( Figure 1A ). These effects on MKP-1 induction continued for 3 hours post-treatment with Pam 3 Cys ( Figure 1A ). In contrast, poly IC did not induce MKP-1 ( Figure 1A ). The results indicate that different inducers showed differential up-regulation of MKP-1 expression.
LPS has been extensively used to demonstrate the role of MKP-1 in immune response both in vivo and in vitro [9, 12] . To establish a foundation for interpretation of subsequent experimental results, LPS was used as a positive control for the induction of MKP-1 expression. To determine the levels of MKP-1 in response to LPS, kinetics of MKP-1 transcription were determined by QPCR. There was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA, which peaked as early as 1 hour upon LPS stimulation, and the levels gradually decreased over a course of 6 hours. These results showed that LPS induced MKP-1 expression (Figure 1B) .
Next, to demonstrate the induction of specific phosphatases by BCG, kinetics of MKP-1 expression in PBMo was studied by using QPCR during BCG treatment. Similar to the results produced by LPS, upon the addition of BCG (MOI = 1 CFU/cell), there was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA within 1 hour of BCG treatment as determined by Taqman probe specific for MKP-1 ( Figure 2A ). The effects lasted for at least 6 hours ( Figure 2A ).
To examine whether the changes of protein production were in parallel to that of the mRNA levels, the protein levels of MKP-1 were measured by Western blotting. In response to BCG, PBMo produced the MKP-1 protein as early as 30 minutes after treatment. The protein levels were maintained for 2 hours and dropped to basal levels at 3 hours ( Figure 2B ). The results demonstrated that there was MKP-1 induction in response to BCG activation in human monocytes.
It has been shown that inhibition of p38 MAPK either by specific inhibitor or siRNA reduced the expression of MKP-1 in LPS-or peptidoglycan-treated macrophages [14] . To determine the mechanisms involved in the BCGinduced MKP-1 expression, PBMo were pretreated with several inhibitors including PD98059 (inhibitor for MAP kinase kinase [MEK] or ERK1/2), SB203580 (inhibitor for p38 MAPK), SP600125 (inhibitor for JNK), and CAPE (inhibitor for NF-κB) for 1 hour. A range of concentrations of each inhibitor was used to test their optimal concentrations and effects on cell viability and kinase inhibitions. BCG was added afterwards and total RNA was harvested. The results demonstrated that, with the inhibition of ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK activities by their corresponding relatively specific inhibitors, MKP-1 expressions were significantly reduced ( Figure 3 ). In addition, using higher dose of SB203580, we showed that the inhibition is increased further (data not shown). On the contrary, pretreatment of the cells with CAPE and SP600125 did not affect the induction of MKP-1 by BCG ( Figure 3 ). These results suggest that BCG-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2.
Throughout the above experiments, the primary goal was to examine the induction of MKP-1 by BCG in human monocytes. Thus, to further examine the role of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling, transfection of siRNA into PBMo was used to knockdown the activity of MKP-1. To demonstrate that the MKP-1 siRNA can indeed knockdown the target gene, PBMo were first transfected with control or MKP-1 siRNA and then treated with BCG for 3 hours. Levels of MKP-1 mRNA were measured by RT-PCR method.
In Figure 4A , BCG stimulated MKP-1 expression (lanes 1 and 2). In MKP-1 siRNA transfected monocytes, induction of MKP-1 by BCG was significantly decreased (lanes 2 and 4). The results showed that the siRNA does abrogate the levels of MKP-1 mRNA.
To further determine whether MKP-1 siRNA affects BCGinduced MKP-1 at protein levels, PBMo were treated as above and MKP-1 proteins were measured by Western blotting. The results showed that BCG could induce MKP-1 proteins as usual for cells transfected with control siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 1-3). However, the levels of BCGinduced MKP-1 protein expression were reduced in cells transfected with MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 4-6). Together, the results suggest that MKP-1 siRNA not only reduced the MKP-1 mRNA in BCG treatment but also abrogated the BCG-induced MKP-1 protein.
As stated in the literature [9] , MKP-1 KO mice showed increased TNF-α production in response to LPS. On the basis of the above MKP-1 siRNA results, LPS was then used as a control to demonstrate the effects of this MKP-1 siRNA system. cytokine expression induced by LPS in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells suggest that the siRNA system is effective in knocking down the MKP-1 expression and MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced TNF-α expression.
To investigate the effect of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced cytokine expression, the levels of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA were measured by QPCR method. PBMo were transfected with either control or MKP-1 siRNA. Following exposure to BCG with control siRNA, there were significant inductions of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA levels for 3 hours after treatment as previously reported ( [5] and data not shown). Next, the effects of MKP-1 siRNA were examined on the cytokine expression induced by BCG. Surprisingly, there was a significant abrogation of BCGinduced TNF-α expression by MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4D ). With the knockdown of MKP-1, the level of BCG-induced TNF-α was only 60% compared to that of the control cells, while BCG-induced IL-6 and IL-10 were unchanged in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells. The results revealed that MKP-1 plays a role in the induction of TNF-α expression upon BCG stimulation, which may be different from that of its conventional functions in which MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced signaling pathways [7] .
The unexpected observations in cytokine expression lead to the investigation on the effects of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced MAPK activation. MKP-1 was found to have a preferential substrate binding to p38 MAPK and JNK than ERK1/2 [7] . The phosphorylation status of MAPKs was assessed in control or MKP-1 siRNA transfected PBMo. Western blotting results demonstrated that BCGinduced both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 phosphorylation in 15 minutes (data not shown) and peaked at 30 minutes, and then returned to basal levels in cells treated with the control siRNA ( Figure 5 ). Similar to the results of cytokine expression, phosphorylation of both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 in response to BCG was decreased in monocytes transfected with MKP-1 siRNA instead of the expected increase in phosphorylation ( Figure 5 ). The results suggest that MKP-1 knockdown would result in reduced MAPK phosphorylation by BCG, implying that the reduced level of TNF-α production in BCG stimulated monocytes is due to reduced phosphorylation of MAPKs by MKP-1 siRNA.
This report presented evidences that a novel function of MKP-1 is uncovered in cytokine regulation in response to mycobacterial infection. BCG induces MKP-1 as a rapid response (Figure 2) . The induction mechanism of MKP-1 by BCG is dependent on both ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK ( Figure 3 ). Using siRNA approach, the functions of MKP-1 can be examined in primary human monocytes. The results showed that the BCG-induced MAPKs activation as well as cytokine expression are downstream of MKP-1 ( Figures 4D and 5) . Thus, MKP-1 is a critical signaling molecule that is involved in BCG-induced cytokine expression.
Previous reports have shown that MKP-1 induced by LPS or peptidoglycan is dependent on p38 MAPK [14] . Accordingly, BCG-induced MKP-1 can be inhibited by both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 inhibitors. Interestingly, it has been shown that degradation of MKP-1 is reduced after ERK1/2 phosphorylation [15] . It can be hypothesized that BCG-induced MKP-1 proteins can be stabilized by ERK1/2 and the detailed mechanisms involved require more exploration. Also, since the inhibition of MKP-1 expression by both inhibitors (for p38 MAPK and ERK1/ 2) was not complete, it is believed that other proteins may be involved in the BCG-induced MKP-1 expression.
On the basis of the literature results on LPS effects ( Figure 6 ), the original expectation for this project is that MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator. LPS-stimulated MKP-1 KO peritoneal macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α [9] . In doing so, LPS-induced MKP-1 could BCG-induced MAPK phosphorylation is decreased by MKP-1 siRNA prevent prolonged TNF-α production as in sepsis which may lead to severe damage to the host. It was expected that BCG induces MKP-1 and its induction would correlate with the dephosphorylation of MAPKs including p38 MAPK. By blocking the MKP-1 using siRNA, it was expected to have increased p38 MAPK phosphorylation and prolonged TNF-α production in response to BCG. Nevertheless, our results shown here are diametrically opposite. One possibility for the unexpected results may be due to non-specific effects of transfection or siRNA. However, this was not the case since there was a prolonged and increased TNF-α expression after the MKP-1 siRNA-transfected monocytes were treated with LPS (Figure 4C ).
There is now a new hypothesis to explain such paradoxical effects of MKP-1 in TNF-α regulation in which the phosphatase plays a role in positive regulation of TNF-α production in response to BCG as in the case of DUSP2 [13] . The structures of MKP-1 and DUSP2 are similar, with which they both contain a MAPK-interacting domain and a phosphatase catalytic site. By contrast, other DUSP may have extra domains, e.g., PEST [6] . Here, we postulate that the function of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling is similar to that of the DUSP2/PAC1.
Actually, the discovery of DUSP2 has initially created some paradoxical questions. As described, DUSP2 behaves differently from other MKP family members [13] . In DUSP2 KO macrophages treated with LPS, they produced less inflammatory mediators including less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, and IL-12-producing cells, when compared to that of the wild type counterparts [13] . Indeed, the results of these published studies on DUSP2 studies are quite similar to that of our reported results here.
It is plausible that these unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 were due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . It was shown that there are interactions between JNK and ERK1/2 pathways [16] .
Here, we showed that the sustained activation of JNK blocks ERK activation ( Figure 6 ). In the DUSP2 situation, stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages shows increased phosphorylation of JNK, and inhibition of JNK by its own specific inhibitor restores phosphorylation of ERK1/2 [13] .
In the BCG-MKP-1 situation, there is an early phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Therefore, it is possible that JNK may play a role in the crosstalk interaction of MAPK. However, our preliminary data suggest that the level of phosphorylated JNK was not increased in PBMo MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection Figure 6 MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. LPS model was provided according to literature findings (Left). In this scenario, LPS activates MKP-1, which in turn dephosphorylates and deactivates phospho-p38 MAPK, resulting in less TNF-α induction. However, the situation in DHP-HSA activation of DUSP2 is more complicated (Middle), since the phosphatase activity causes subsequent inhibition of phospho-JNK which leads to the derepression of phospho-p38 MAPK. Consequently, the combined effects of this cascade results in more TNF-α expression. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 (Right) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case (Right), there was an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, and the unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation leading to more TNF-α induction. The details and kinase targets are yet to be identified. transfected with MKP-1 siRNA (data not shown). Thus, the details of the crosstalk between MAPKs need further investigation. Here, we present a model to summarize the results and to hypothesize the existence of an as yet unidentified intermediary factor or factors in the pathways downstream of MKP-1 effects in the BCG-induced signaling cascade. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 ( Figure 6 ) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case, BCG induces MKP-1 expression while also activates MAPKs including p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Downstream of MKP-1, there is an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases. The unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, which ultimately leads to more TNF-α induction ( Figure 6 ).
In summary, MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. Inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, which in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, may be used to explain the novel function of MKP-1 in enhancing MAPK activity and consequent TNF-α expression following BCG treatment ( Figure 6 ). Taken together, the role of MAPK crosstalks need further exploration. (3) TNF-α, 30 cycles (TM = 56°C), upstream, 5'-GGCTCCAGGCGGTGCTTGTTC-3', downstream, 5'-AGACGGCGATGCGGCTGATG-3'. PCR products were analyzed on a 1% agarose gel with ethidium bromide and visualized under ultraviolet light. In order to check the size of the PCR products, 1 kb Plus DNA Lad-der™ (Invitrogen, USA) was run along with the PCR products.
To perform QPCR, the levels of MKP-1, and TNF-α mRNA as well as the reference gene GAPDH (as internal control) were assayed by the gene-specific Assays-on-Demand reagent kits (Applied Biosystems, USA). All samples were run in duplicates or triplicates and with no template controls on an ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detector. The analysis method of QPCR was the comparative cycle number to threshold (C T ) method as described in user bulletin no. 2 of the ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detection System. The number of C T of the targeted genes was normalized to that of GAPDH in each sample (ΔC T ). The C T value of the treated cells was compared with that of the untreated or mock-treated cells (ΔΔCT). The relative gene expression of the targeted genes (fold induction) was calculated as 2 -ΔΔCT .
Total cellular proteins were extracted by lysing cells in lysis buffer containing 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA (pH 8.0), 1% SDS, 0.2 mg/ml PMSF, 1 μg/ml aprotinin, 1 mM sodium orthovanadate, 2 μg/ml pepstatin, 2 μg/ml leupeptin, and 50 mM sodium fluoride for 5 minutes. The homogenate was then boiled for 10 minutes and stored at -70°C until use. The concentrations of total protein in cell extracts were determined by BCA™ Protein Assay Kit (Pierce, IL, USA).
Western blot was done as described [20] . Equal amounts of protein were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE, electroblotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (Schleicher & Schuell), and followed by probing with specific antibod-ies for Actin, MKP-1 (Santa Cruz Biotech., USA), phospho-p38 MAPK, phospho-ERK1/2 (Cell Signaling, USA). After three washes, the membranes were incubated with the corresponding secondary antibodies. The bands were detected using the Enhanced Chemiluminescence System (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) as per the manufacturer's instructions.
Transfection of siRNA into human monocytes was done as described [21] . MKP-1 siRNA included (i) MKP1-HSS102982, AAACGCUUCGUAUCCUCCUUUGAGG; (ii) MKP1-HSS102983, UUAUGCCCAAGGCAUCCAG-CAUGUC; and (iii) MKP1-HSS102984, UGAUG-GAGUCUAUGAAGUCAAUGGC. MKP-1 knockdown in PBMo was conducted by using MKP1-HSS102983 only or a pool of the above three different MKP-1 Stealth™ Select RNAi (ratio = 1:1:1, 200 nM, Invitrogen, USA). Stealth™ RNAi Negative Control Duplex (200 nM) was used as a control for sequence independent effects for the siRNA transfection. Transfection of monocytes was done by using jetPEI™ DNA transfection reagent (Polyplus Transfection, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After transfecting the cells for 24 h, the transfectants were treated with different inducers as described above.
Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t test. Differences were considered statistically significant when p values were less than 0.05. | What is lipopolysaccharide? | {
"answer_start": [
4089
],
"text": [
"a cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria"
]
} | false |
898 | A novel anti-mycobacterial function of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804704/
SHA: f6ed1f1e9999e57793addb1c9c54f61c7861a995
Authors: Cheung, Benny KW; Yim, Howard CH; Lee, Norris CM; Lau, Allan SY
Date: 2009-12-17
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2172-10-64
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. To combat against this pathogen, immune cells release cytokines including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which is pivotal in the development of protective granulomas. Our previous results showed that Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG), a mycobacterium used as a model to investigate the immune response against MTB, stimulates the induction of TNF-α via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) in human blood monocytes. Since MAPK phosphatase-1 (MKP-1) is known to regulate MAPK activities, we examined whether MKP-1 plays a role in BCG-induced MAPK activation and cytokine expression. RESULTS: Primary human blood monocytes were treated with BCG and assayed for MKP-1 expression. Our results demonstrated that following exposure to BCG, there was an increase in the expression of MKP-1. Additionally, the induction of MKP-1 was regulated by p38 MAPK and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2). Surprisingly, when MKP-1 expression was blocked by its specific siRNA, there was a significant decrease in the levels of phospho-MAPK (p38 MAPK and ERK1/2) and TNF-α inducible by BCG. CONCLUSIONS: Since TNF-α is pivotal in granuloma formation, the results indicated an unexpected positive function of MKP-1 against mycobacterial infection as opposed to its usual phosphatase activity.
Text: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world, especially in the developing countries [1] . The disease is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and approximately one third of the world's population has been infected by this pathogen. In a recent report, World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that there are 9.2 million new TB cases around the world in 2006 [1] .
In response to MTB infection, induction of cytokines by immune cells is an important defense mechanism. The infected macrophages secrete intercellular signaling factors, proinflammatory cytokines, to mediate the inflammatory response leading to the formation of granuloma and induction of T-cell mediated immunity [2] . In order to understand TB pathogenesis, signaling pathways induced by mycobacteria have long been a subject of interest. Mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPKs) including extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), p38 MAPK, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) have been implicated as important cellular signaling molecules activated by mycobacteria [3] . Previous reports have shown that p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 are required in the induction of TNF-α expression in human monocytes infected with M. tuberculosis H37Rv [4] . We have further revealed the significant role of MAPKs in the signal transduction events of mycobacterial activation of primary human blood monocytes (PBMo) leading to cytokine expressions via the interaction with PKR [5] . However, the subsequent events as to how MAPK is regulated and how such regulation affects cytokine production in response to mycobacteria remain to be elucidated.
Since MAPKs are activated by phosphorylation, dephosphorylation of MAPKs seems to be an efficient process to inactivate their activities. It can be achieved by specific protein kinase phosphatases which can remove the phosphate group from MAPKs. Examples of these phosphatases include tyrosine phosphatases, serine/threonine phosphatases, and dual-specificity phosphatases (DUSPs). Some DUSPs are also known as MAPK phosphatases (MKPs) [6] [7] [8] . Currently, there are at least 10 MKPs identified, while MKP-1 is the most studied member of the family. The regulatory role of MKP-1 on cytokine induction is best demonstrated by MKP-1 knockout (KO) macrophages in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria. MKP-1 KO macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α in response to LPS treatment [9] . Consistent with these results, another group further revealed that LPS-treated MKP-1 KO bone marrow-derived macrophages show increased AP-1 DNA-binding activity [10] . Also, they showed that LPS-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88) and TIR domain-containing adaptor inducing IFN-β (TRIF) [10] , thus demonstrating the role of MKP-1 in signal transduction.
Not only LPS, other TLR inducers including CpG, peptidoglycan, poly IC, and Pam 3 Cys can regulate cytokine expressions including TNF-α, IL-10 via MKP-1 activities [10, 11] . In these processes, MKP-1 serves to mitigate the undesirable effects of septic shock and maintain organ functions by restraining the inflammatory responses following bacterial infection. Another example of MKP-1 function is the immune response to Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a Gram positive bacteria. There are higher levels of cytokine production including TNF-α, IL-6, and MIP-1α in MKP-1 KO mice infected with S. aureus [12] . Also, the mice would have a rapid development of multiorgan dysfunction as well as faster mortality rate upon challenge with heat-killed S. aureus [12] . Taken together, these results suggest that MKP-1 protects the host from overactivation of the immune system in response to Gram negative or Gram positive bacteria.
In the past, it was believed that different MKP/DUSP family members have overlapping functions. However, the emergence of DUSP2 turned the concept up side down [13] . It was shown that DUSP2 behaves differently and is opposite to the function as stated above. In DUSP2 KO cells, they produced less inflammatory mediators, implying that DUSP2 may play a role in mediating instead of limiting inflammation. For instances, when DUSP2 KO macrophages were treated with LPS, there were less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, IL-12-producing cells when compared to those of the wild type counterparts [13] . When the DUSP2 KO bone marrow-derived mast cells were first sensitized with immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor (FcεRI) and then stimulated with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen, they produced lower TNF mRNA levels, diminished IL-6 production, less phosphorylation of ERK1/2, p38 MAPK, and less transcriptional activities by Elk1 and NFAT-AP-1 [13] .
These unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 have been hypothesized to be due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . Stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages showed increases in phosphorylation of JNK. Moreover, inhibition of JNK by small molecule inhibitors showed increases in phosphorylation of ERK [13] . The authors also showed that there were physical interactions of DUSP2 with ERK2, DUSP2 with JNK2, as well as DUSP2 and p38 MAPK after stimulation of the cells with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen. Nevertheless, the details of the crosstalks between MAPKs and phosphatases need further investigation. Thus, the MKP family plays a critical role in the regulation of immune responses.
Innate immune response protects the host from MTB infection by secretion of cytokines including TNF-α in immune cells. Meanwhile, MAPK is one of the critical proteins in the regulation of immunity and cytokine expression. Since MAPK is regulated by MKP-1 in response to LPS and the activation of MAPK is important in BCGinduced cytokine expression, we hypothesize that MKP-1 plays a critical role in the immune regulation of BCG in human monocytes. We examined the involvement of MKP-1 in BCG-induced MAPK activation and its consequent cytokine expression. Here, we present evidences that MKP-1 plays an unexpected role in the regulation of cytokine induction by BCG through its control of MAPK phosphorylation.
It has been reported that many inducers including growth factors, LPS, peptidoglycan, and dexamethasone can stimulate the expression of MKP-1 in human macrophages, microglia, mast cells or fibroblasts [6] . To investigate the role of different TLR inducers in MKP-1 induction process in human blood monocytes, the level of MKP-1 mRNA was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) method. PBMo were isolated from primary human blood mononuclear cells and stimulated with Pam 3 Cys (TLR2 agonist), poly IC (TLR3 agonist), or LPS (TLR4 agonist) for 1 and 3 hours. Following exposure to Pam 3 Cys or LPS, there were significant inductions of MKP-1 mRNA levels within 1 hour of treatment ( Figure 1A ). These effects on MKP-1 induction continued for 3 hours post-treatment with Pam 3 Cys ( Figure 1A ). In contrast, poly IC did not induce MKP-1 ( Figure 1A ). The results indicate that different inducers showed differential up-regulation of MKP-1 expression.
LPS has been extensively used to demonstrate the role of MKP-1 in immune response both in vivo and in vitro [9, 12] . To establish a foundation for interpretation of subsequent experimental results, LPS was used as a positive control for the induction of MKP-1 expression. To determine the levels of MKP-1 in response to LPS, kinetics of MKP-1 transcription were determined by QPCR. There was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA, which peaked as early as 1 hour upon LPS stimulation, and the levels gradually decreased over a course of 6 hours. These results showed that LPS induced MKP-1 expression (Figure 1B) .
Next, to demonstrate the induction of specific phosphatases by BCG, kinetics of MKP-1 expression in PBMo was studied by using QPCR during BCG treatment. Similar to the results produced by LPS, upon the addition of BCG (MOI = 1 CFU/cell), there was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA within 1 hour of BCG treatment as determined by Taqman probe specific for MKP-1 ( Figure 2A ). The effects lasted for at least 6 hours ( Figure 2A ).
To examine whether the changes of protein production were in parallel to that of the mRNA levels, the protein levels of MKP-1 were measured by Western blotting. In response to BCG, PBMo produced the MKP-1 protein as early as 30 minutes after treatment. The protein levels were maintained for 2 hours and dropped to basal levels at 3 hours ( Figure 2B ). The results demonstrated that there was MKP-1 induction in response to BCG activation in human monocytes.
It has been shown that inhibition of p38 MAPK either by specific inhibitor or siRNA reduced the expression of MKP-1 in LPS-or peptidoglycan-treated macrophages [14] . To determine the mechanisms involved in the BCGinduced MKP-1 expression, PBMo were pretreated with several inhibitors including PD98059 (inhibitor for MAP kinase kinase [MEK] or ERK1/2), SB203580 (inhibitor for p38 MAPK), SP600125 (inhibitor for JNK), and CAPE (inhibitor for NF-κB) for 1 hour. A range of concentrations of each inhibitor was used to test their optimal concentrations and effects on cell viability and kinase inhibitions. BCG was added afterwards and total RNA was harvested. The results demonstrated that, with the inhibition of ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK activities by their corresponding relatively specific inhibitors, MKP-1 expressions were significantly reduced ( Figure 3 ). In addition, using higher dose of SB203580, we showed that the inhibition is increased further (data not shown). On the contrary, pretreatment of the cells with CAPE and SP600125 did not affect the induction of MKP-1 by BCG ( Figure 3 ). These results suggest that BCG-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2.
Throughout the above experiments, the primary goal was to examine the induction of MKP-1 by BCG in human monocytes. Thus, to further examine the role of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling, transfection of siRNA into PBMo was used to knockdown the activity of MKP-1. To demonstrate that the MKP-1 siRNA can indeed knockdown the target gene, PBMo were first transfected with control or MKP-1 siRNA and then treated with BCG for 3 hours. Levels of MKP-1 mRNA were measured by RT-PCR method.
In Figure 4A , BCG stimulated MKP-1 expression (lanes 1 and 2). In MKP-1 siRNA transfected monocytes, induction of MKP-1 by BCG was significantly decreased (lanes 2 and 4). The results showed that the siRNA does abrogate the levels of MKP-1 mRNA.
To further determine whether MKP-1 siRNA affects BCGinduced MKP-1 at protein levels, PBMo were treated as above and MKP-1 proteins were measured by Western blotting. The results showed that BCG could induce MKP-1 proteins as usual for cells transfected with control siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 1-3). However, the levels of BCGinduced MKP-1 protein expression were reduced in cells transfected with MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 4-6). Together, the results suggest that MKP-1 siRNA not only reduced the MKP-1 mRNA in BCG treatment but also abrogated the BCG-induced MKP-1 protein.
As stated in the literature [9] , MKP-1 KO mice showed increased TNF-α production in response to LPS. On the basis of the above MKP-1 siRNA results, LPS was then used as a control to demonstrate the effects of this MKP-1 siRNA system. cytokine expression induced by LPS in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells suggest that the siRNA system is effective in knocking down the MKP-1 expression and MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced TNF-α expression.
To investigate the effect of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced cytokine expression, the levels of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA were measured by QPCR method. PBMo were transfected with either control or MKP-1 siRNA. Following exposure to BCG with control siRNA, there were significant inductions of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA levels for 3 hours after treatment as previously reported ( [5] and data not shown). Next, the effects of MKP-1 siRNA were examined on the cytokine expression induced by BCG. Surprisingly, there was a significant abrogation of BCGinduced TNF-α expression by MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4D ). With the knockdown of MKP-1, the level of BCG-induced TNF-α was only 60% compared to that of the control cells, while BCG-induced IL-6 and IL-10 were unchanged in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells. The results revealed that MKP-1 plays a role in the induction of TNF-α expression upon BCG stimulation, which may be different from that of its conventional functions in which MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced signaling pathways [7] .
The unexpected observations in cytokine expression lead to the investigation on the effects of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced MAPK activation. MKP-1 was found to have a preferential substrate binding to p38 MAPK and JNK than ERK1/2 [7] . The phosphorylation status of MAPKs was assessed in control or MKP-1 siRNA transfected PBMo. Western blotting results demonstrated that BCGinduced both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 phosphorylation in 15 minutes (data not shown) and peaked at 30 minutes, and then returned to basal levels in cells treated with the control siRNA ( Figure 5 ). Similar to the results of cytokine expression, phosphorylation of both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 in response to BCG was decreased in monocytes transfected with MKP-1 siRNA instead of the expected increase in phosphorylation ( Figure 5 ). The results suggest that MKP-1 knockdown would result in reduced MAPK phosphorylation by BCG, implying that the reduced level of TNF-α production in BCG stimulated monocytes is due to reduced phosphorylation of MAPKs by MKP-1 siRNA.
This report presented evidences that a novel function of MKP-1 is uncovered in cytokine regulation in response to mycobacterial infection. BCG induces MKP-1 as a rapid response (Figure 2) . The induction mechanism of MKP-1 by BCG is dependent on both ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK ( Figure 3 ). Using siRNA approach, the functions of MKP-1 can be examined in primary human monocytes. The results showed that the BCG-induced MAPKs activation as well as cytokine expression are downstream of MKP-1 ( Figures 4D and 5) . Thus, MKP-1 is a critical signaling molecule that is involved in BCG-induced cytokine expression.
Previous reports have shown that MKP-1 induced by LPS or peptidoglycan is dependent on p38 MAPK [14] . Accordingly, BCG-induced MKP-1 can be inhibited by both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 inhibitors. Interestingly, it has been shown that degradation of MKP-1 is reduced after ERK1/2 phosphorylation [15] . It can be hypothesized that BCG-induced MKP-1 proteins can be stabilized by ERK1/2 and the detailed mechanisms involved require more exploration. Also, since the inhibition of MKP-1 expression by both inhibitors (for p38 MAPK and ERK1/ 2) was not complete, it is believed that other proteins may be involved in the BCG-induced MKP-1 expression.
On the basis of the literature results on LPS effects ( Figure 6 ), the original expectation for this project is that MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator. LPS-stimulated MKP-1 KO peritoneal macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α [9] . In doing so, LPS-induced MKP-1 could BCG-induced MAPK phosphorylation is decreased by MKP-1 siRNA prevent prolonged TNF-α production as in sepsis which may lead to severe damage to the host. It was expected that BCG induces MKP-1 and its induction would correlate with the dephosphorylation of MAPKs including p38 MAPK. By blocking the MKP-1 using siRNA, it was expected to have increased p38 MAPK phosphorylation and prolonged TNF-α production in response to BCG. Nevertheless, our results shown here are diametrically opposite. One possibility for the unexpected results may be due to non-specific effects of transfection or siRNA. However, this was not the case since there was a prolonged and increased TNF-α expression after the MKP-1 siRNA-transfected monocytes were treated with LPS (Figure 4C ).
There is now a new hypothesis to explain such paradoxical effects of MKP-1 in TNF-α regulation in which the phosphatase plays a role in positive regulation of TNF-α production in response to BCG as in the case of DUSP2 [13] . The structures of MKP-1 and DUSP2 are similar, with which they both contain a MAPK-interacting domain and a phosphatase catalytic site. By contrast, other DUSP may have extra domains, e.g., PEST [6] . Here, we postulate that the function of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling is similar to that of the DUSP2/PAC1.
Actually, the discovery of DUSP2 has initially created some paradoxical questions. As described, DUSP2 behaves differently from other MKP family members [13] . In DUSP2 KO macrophages treated with LPS, they produced less inflammatory mediators including less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, and IL-12-producing cells, when compared to that of the wild type counterparts [13] . Indeed, the results of these published studies on DUSP2 studies are quite similar to that of our reported results here.
It is plausible that these unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 were due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . It was shown that there are interactions between JNK and ERK1/2 pathways [16] .
Here, we showed that the sustained activation of JNK blocks ERK activation ( Figure 6 ). In the DUSP2 situation, stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages shows increased phosphorylation of JNK, and inhibition of JNK by its own specific inhibitor restores phosphorylation of ERK1/2 [13] .
In the BCG-MKP-1 situation, there is an early phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Therefore, it is possible that JNK may play a role in the crosstalk interaction of MAPK. However, our preliminary data suggest that the level of phosphorylated JNK was not increased in PBMo MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection Figure 6 MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. LPS model was provided according to literature findings (Left). In this scenario, LPS activates MKP-1, which in turn dephosphorylates and deactivates phospho-p38 MAPK, resulting in less TNF-α induction. However, the situation in DHP-HSA activation of DUSP2 is more complicated (Middle), since the phosphatase activity causes subsequent inhibition of phospho-JNK which leads to the derepression of phospho-p38 MAPK. Consequently, the combined effects of this cascade results in more TNF-α expression. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 (Right) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case (Right), there was an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, and the unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation leading to more TNF-α induction. The details and kinase targets are yet to be identified. transfected with MKP-1 siRNA (data not shown). Thus, the details of the crosstalk between MAPKs need further investigation. Here, we present a model to summarize the results and to hypothesize the existence of an as yet unidentified intermediary factor or factors in the pathways downstream of MKP-1 effects in the BCG-induced signaling cascade. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 ( Figure 6 ) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case, BCG induces MKP-1 expression while also activates MAPKs including p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Downstream of MKP-1, there is an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases. The unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, which ultimately leads to more TNF-α induction ( Figure 6 ).
In summary, MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. Inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, which in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, may be used to explain the novel function of MKP-1 in enhancing MAPK activity and consequent TNF-α expression following BCG treatment ( Figure 6 ). Taken together, the role of MAPK crosstalks need further exploration. (3) TNF-α, 30 cycles (TM = 56°C), upstream, 5'-GGCTCCAGGCGGTGCTTGTTC-3', downstream, 5'-AGACGGCGATGCGGCTGATG-3'. PCR products were analyzed on a 1% agarose gel with ethidium bromide and visualized under ultraviolet light. In order to check the size of the PCR products, 1 kb Plus DNA Lad-der™ (Invitrogen, USA) was run along with the PCR products.
To perform QPCR, the levels of MKP-1, and TNF-α mRNA as well as the reference gene GAPDH (as internal control) were assayed by the gene-specific Assays-on-Demand reagent kits (Applied Biosystems, USA). All samples were run in duplicates or triplicates and with no template controls on an ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detector. The analysis method of QPCR was the comparative cycle number to threshold (C T ) method as described in user bulletin no. 2 of the ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detection System. The number of C T of the targeted genes was normalized to that of GAPDH in each sample (ΔC T ). The C T value of the treated cells was compared with that of the untreated or mock-treated cells (ΔΔCT). The relative gene expression of the targeted genes (fold induction) was calculated as 2 -ΔΔCT .
Total cellular proteins were extracted by lysing cells in lysis buffer containing 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA (pH 8.0), 1% SDS, 0.2 mg/ml PMSF, 1 μg/ml aprotinin, 1 mM sodium orthovanadate, 2 μg/ml pepstatin, 2 μg/ml leupeptin, and 50 mM sodium fluoride for 5 minutes. The homogenate was then boiled for 10 minutes and stored at -70°C until use. The concentrations of total protein in cell extracts were determined by BCA™ Protein Assay Kit (Pierce, IL, USA).
Western blot was done as described [20] . Equal amounts of protein were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE, electroblotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (Schleicher & Schuell), and followed by probing with specific antibod-ies for Actin, MKP-1 (Santa Cruz Biotech., USA), phospho-p38 MAPK, phospho-ERK1/2 (Cell Signaling, USA). After three washes, the membranes were incubated with the corresponding secondary antibodies. The bands were detected using the Enhanced Chemiluminescence System (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) as per the manufacturer's instructions.
Transfection of siRNA into human monocytes was done as described [21] . MKP-1 siRNA included (i) MKP1-HSS102982, AAACGCUUCGUAUCCUCCUUUGAGG; (ii) MKP1-HSS102983, UUAUGCCCAAGGCAUCCAG-CAUGUC; and (iii) MKP1-HSS102984, UGAUG-GAGUCUAUGAAGUCAAUGGC. MKP-1 knockdown in PBMo was conducted by using MKP1-HSS102983 only or a pool of the above three different MKP-1 Stealth™ Select RNAi (ratio = 1:1:1, 200 nM, Invitrogen, USA). Stealth™ RNAi Negative Control Duplex (200 nM) was used as a control for sequence independent effects for the siRNA transfection. Transfection of monocytes was done by using jetPEI™ DNA transfection reagent (Polyplus Transfection, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After transfecting the cells for 24 h, the transfectants were treated with different inducers as described above.
Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t test. Differences were considered statistically significant when p values were less than 0.05. | What is Staph aureus? | {
"answer_start": [
5150
],
"text": [
"Gram positive bacteria"
]
} | false |
899 | A novel anti-mycobacterial function of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804704/
SHA: f6ed1f1e9999e57793addb1c9c54f61c7861a995
Authors: Cheung, Benny KW; Yim, Howard CH; Lee, Norris CM; Lau, Allan SY
Date: 2009-12-17
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2172-10-64
License: cc-by
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. To combat against this pathogen, immune cells release cytokines including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which is pivotal in the development of protective granulomas. Our previous results showed that Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG), a mycobacterium used as a model to investigate the immune response against MTB, stimulates the induction of TNF-α via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) in human blood monocytes. Since MAPK phosphatase-1 (MKP-1) is known to regulate MAPK activities, we examined whether MKP-1 plays a role in BCG-induced MAPK activation and cytokine expression. RESULTS: Primary human blood monocytes were treated with BCG and assayed for MKP-1 expression. Our results demonstrated that following exposure to BCG, there was an increase in the expression of MKP-1. Additionally, the induction of MKP-1 was regulated by p38 MAPK and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2). Surprisingly, when MKP-1 expression was blocked by its specific siRNA, there was a significant decrease in the levels of phospho-MAPK (p38 MAPK and ERK1/2) and TNF-α inducible by BCG. CONCLUSIONS: Since TNF-α is pivotal in granuloma formation, the results indicated an unexpected positive function of MKP-1 against mycobacterial infection as opposed to its usual phosphatase activity.
Text: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world, especially in the developing countries [1] . The disease is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and approximately one third of the world's population has been infected by this pathogen. In a recent report, World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that there are 9.2 million new TB cases around the world in 2006 [1] .
In response to MTB infection, induction of cytokines by immune cells is an important defense mechanism. The infected macrophages secrete intercellular signaling factors, proinflammatory cytokines, to mediate the inflammatory response leading to the formation of granuloma and induction of T-cell mediated immunity [2] . In order to understand TB pathogenesis, signaling pathways induced by mycobacteria have long been a subject of interest. Mitogen activated protein kinases (MAPKs) including extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), p38 MAPK, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) have been implicated as important cellular signaling molecules activated by mycobacteria [3] . Previous reports have shown that p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 are required in the induction of TNF-α expression in human monocytes infected with M. tuberculosis H37Rv [4] . We have further revealed the significant role of MAPKs in the signal transduction events of mycobacterial activation of primary human blood monocytes (PBMo) leading to cytokine expressions via the interaction with PKR [5] . However, the subsequent events as to how MAPK is regulated and how such regulation affects cytokine production in response to mycobacteria remain to be elucidated.
Since MAPKs are activated by phosphorylation, dephosphorylation of MAPKs seems to be an efficient process to inactivate their activities. It can be achieved by specific protein kinase phosphatases which can remove the phosphate group from MAPKs. Examples of these phosphatases include tyrosine phosphatases, serine/threonine phosphatases, and dual-specificity phosphatases (DUSPs). Some DUSPs are also known as MAPK phosphatases (MKPs) [6] [7] [8] . Currently, there are at least 10 MKPs identified, while MKP-1 is the most studied member of the family. The regulatory role of MKP-1 on cytokine induction is best demonstrated by MKP-1 knockout (KO) macrophages in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria. MKP-1 KO macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α in response to LPS treatment [9] . Consistent with these results, another group further revealed that LPS-treated MKP-1 KO bone marrow-derived macrophages show increased AP-1 DNA-binding activity [10] . Also, they showed that LPS-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88) and TIR domain-containing adaptor inducing IFN-β (TRIF) [10] , thus demonstrating the role of MKP-1 in signal transduction.
Not only LPS, other TLR inducers including CpG, peptidoglycan, poly IC, and Pam 3 Cys can regulate cytokine expressions including TNF-α, IL-10 via MKP-1 activities [10, 11] . In these processes, MKP-1 serves to mitigate the undesirable effects of septic shock and maintain organ functions by restraining the inflammatory responses following bacterial infection. Another example of MKP-1 function is the immune response to Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a Gram positive bacteria. There are higher levels of cytokine production including TNF-α, IL-6, and MIP-1α in MKP-1 KO mice infected with S. aureus [12] . Also, the mice would have a rapid development of multiorgan dysfunction as well as faster mortality rate upon challenge with heat-killed S. aureus [12] . Taken together, these results suggest that MKP-1 protects the host from overactivation of the immune system in response to Gram negative or Gram positive bacteria.
In the past, it was believed that different MKP/DUSP family members have overlapping functions. However, the emergence of DUSP2 turned the concept up side down [13] . It was shown that DUSP2 behaves differently and is opposite to the function as stated above. In DUSP2 KO cells, they produced less inflammatory mediators, implying that DUSP2 may play a role in mediating instead of limiting inflammation. For instances, when DUSP2 KO macrophages were treated with LPS, there were less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, IL-12-producing cells when compared to those of the wild type counterparts [13] . When the DUSP2 KO bone marrow-derived mast cells were first sensitized with immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor (FcεRI) and then stimulated with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen, they produced lower TNF mRNA levels, diminished IL-6 production, less phosphorylation of ERK1/2, p38 MAPK, and less transcriptional activities by Elk1 and NFAT-AP-1 [13] .
These unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 have been hypothesized to be due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . Stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages showed increases in phosphorylation of JNK. Moreover, inhibition of JNK by small molecule inhibitors showed increases in phosphorylation of ERK [13] . The authors also showed that there were physical interactions of DUSP2 with ERK2, DUSP2 with JNK2, as well as DUSP2 and p38 MAPK after stimulation of the cells with dinitrophenol-heat stable antigen. Nevertheless, the details of the crosstalks between MAPKs and phosphatases need further investigation. Thus, the MKP family plays a critical role in the regulation of immune responses.
Innate immune response protects the host from MTB infection by secretion of cytokines including TNF-α in immune cells. Meanwhile, MAPK is one of the critical proteins in the regulation of immunity and cytokine expression. Since MAPK is regulated by MKP-1 in response to LPS and the activation of MAPK is important in BCGinduced cytokine expression, we hypothesize that MKP-1 plays a critical role in the immune regulation of BCG in human monocytes. We examined the involvement of MKP-1 in BCG-induced MAPK activation and its consequent cytokine expression. Here, we present evidences that MKP-1 plays an unexpected role in the regulation of cytokine induction by BCG through its control of MAPK phosphorylation.
It has been reported that many inducers including growth factors, LPS, peptidoglycan, and dexamethasone can stimulate the expression of MKP-1 in human macrophages, microglia, mast cells or fibroblasts [6] . To investigate the role of different TLR inducers in MKP-1 induction process in human blood monocytes, the level of MKP-1 mRNA was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) method. PBMo were isolated from primary human blood mononuclear cells and stimulated with Pam 3 Cys (TLR2 agonist), poly IC (TLR3 agonist), or LPS (TLR4 agonist) for 1 and 3 hours. Following exposure to Pam 3 Cys or LPS, there were significant inductions of MKP-1 mRNA levels within 1 hour of treatment ( Figure 1A ). These effects on MKP-1 induction continued for 3 hours post-treatment with Pam 3 Cys ( Figure 1A ). In contrast, poly IC did not induce MKP-1 ( Figure 1A ). The results indicate that different inducers showed differential up-regulation of MKP-1 expression.
LPS has been extensively used to demonstrate the role of MKP-1 in immune response both in vivo and in vitro [9, 12] . To establish a foundation for interpretation of subsequent experimental results, LPS was used as a positive control for the induction of MKP-1 expression. To determine the levels of MKP-1 in response to LPS, kinetics of MKP-1 transcription were determined by QPCR. There was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA, which peaked as early as 1 hour upon LPS stimulation, and the levels gradually decreased over a course of 6 hours. These results showed that LPS induced MKP-1 expression (Figure 1B) .
Next, to demonstrate the induction of specific phosphatases by BCG, kinetics of MKP-1 expression in PBMo was studied by using QPCR during BCG treatment. Similar to the results produced by LPS, upon the addition of BCG (MOI = 1 CFU/cell), there was a significant induction of MKP-1 mRNA within 1 hour of BCG treatment as determined by Taqman probe specific for MKP-1 ( Figure 2A ). The effects lasted for at least 6 hours ( Figure 2A ).
To examine whether the changes of protein production were in parallel to that of the mRNA levels, the protein levels of MKP-1 were measured by Western blotting. In response to BCG, PBMo produced the MKP-1 protein as early as 30 minutes after treatment. The protein levels were maintained for 2 hours and dropped to basal levels at 3 hours ( Figure 2B ). The results demonstrated that there was MKP-1 induction in response to BCG activation in human monocytes.
It has been shown that inhibition of p38 MAPK either by specific inhibitor or siRNA reduced the expression of MKP-1 in LPS-or peptidoglycan-treated macrophages [14] . To determine the mechanisms involved in the BCGinduced MKP-1 expression, PBMo were pretreated with several inhibitors including PD98059 (inhibitor for MAP kinase kinase [MEK] or ERK1/2), SB203580 (inhibitor for p38 MAPK), SP600125 (inhibitor for JNK), and CAPE (inhibitor for NF-κB) for 1 hour. A range of concentrations of each inhibitor was used to test their optimal concentrations and effects on cell viability and kinase inhibitions. BCG was added afterwards and total RNA was harvested. The results demonstrated that, with the inhibition of ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK activities by their corresponding relatively specific inhibitors, MKP-1 expressions were significantly reduced ( Figure 3 ). In addition, using higher dose of SB203580, we showed that the inhibition is increased further (data not shown). On the contrary, pretreatment of the cells with CAPE and SP600125 did not affect the induction of MKP-1 by BCG ( Figure 3 ). These results suggest that BCG-induced MKP-1 expression is dependent on both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2.
Throughout the above experiments, the primary goal was to examine the induction of MKP-1 by BCG in human monocytes. Thus, to further examine the role of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling, transfection of siRNA into PBMo was used to knockdown the activity of MKP-1. To demonstrate that the MKP-1 siRNA can indeed knockdown the target gene, PBMo were first transfected with control or MKP-1 siRNA and then treated with BCG for 3 hours. Levels of MKP-1 mRNA were measured by RT-PCR method.
In Figure 4A , BCG stimulated MKP-1 expression (lanes 1 and 2). In MKP-1 siRNA transfected monocytes, induction of MKP-1 by BCG was significantly decreased (lanes 2 and 4). The results showed that the siRNA does abrogate the levels of MKP-1 mRNA.
To further determine whether MKP-1 siRNA affects BCGinduced MKP-1 at protein levels, PBMo were treated as above and MKP-1 proteins were measured by Western blotting. The results showed that BCG could induce MKP-1 proteins as usual for cells transfected with control siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 1-3). However, the levels of BCGinduced MKP-1 protein expression were reduced in cells transfected with MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4B , lanes 4-6). Together, the results suggest that MKP-1 siRNA not only reduced the MKP-1 mRNA in BCG treatment but also abrogated the BCG-induced MKP-1 protein.
As stated in the literature [9] , MKP-1 KO mice showed increased TNF-α production in response to LPS. On the basis of the above MKP-1 siRNA results, LPS was then used as a control to demonstrate the effects of this MKP-1 siRNA system. cytokine expression induced by LPS in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells suggest that the siRNA system is effective in knocking down the MKP-1 expression and MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced TNF-α expression.
To investigate the effect of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced cytokine expression, the levels of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA were measured by QPCR method. PBMo were transfected with either control or MKP-1 siRNA. Following exposure to BCG with control siRNA, there were significant inductions of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-10 mRNA levels for 3 hours after treatment as previously reported ( [5] and data not shown). Next, the effects of MKP-1 siRNA were examined on the cytokine expression induced by BCG. Surprisingly, there was a significant abrogation of BCGinduced TNF-α expression by MKP-1 siRNA ( Figure 4D ). With the knockdown of MKP-1, the level of BCG-induced TNF-α was only 60% compared to that of the control cells, while BCG-induced IL-6 and IL-10 were unchanged in MKP-1 siRNA transfected cells. The results revealed that MKP-1 plays a role in the induction of TNF-α expression upon BCG stimulation, which may be different from that of its conventional functions in which MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator in LPS-induced signaling pathways [7] .
The unexpected observations in cytokine expression lead to the investigation on the effects of MKP-1 siRNA on BCG-induced MAPK activation. MKP-1 was found to have a preferential substrate binding to p38 MAPK and JNK than ERK1/2 [7] . The phosphorylation status of MAPKs was assessed in control or MKP-1 siRNA transfected PBMo. Western blotting results demonstrated that BCGinduced both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 phosphorylation in 15 minutes (data not shown) and peaked at 30 minutes, and then returned to basal levels in cells treated with the control siRNA ( Figure 5 ). Similar to the results of cytokine expression, phosphorylation of both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 in response to BCG was decreased in monocytes transfected with MKP-1 siRNA instead of the expected increase in phosphorylation ( Figure 5 ). The results suggest that MKP-1 knockdown would result in reduced MAPK phosphorylation by BCG, implying that the reduced level of TNF-α production in BCG stimulated monocytes is due to reduced phosphorylation of MAPKs by MKP-1 siRNA.
This report presented evidences that a novel function of MKP-1 is uncovered in cytokine regulation in response to mycobacterial infection. BCG induces MKP-1 as a rapid response (Figure 2) . The induction mechanism of MKP-1 by BCG is dependent on both ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK ( Figure 3 ). Using siRNA approach, the functions of MKP-1 can be examined in primary human monocytes. The results showed that the BCG-induced MAPKs activation as well as cytokine expression are downstream of MKP-1 ( Figures 4D and 5) . Thus, MKP-1 is a critical signaling molecule that is involved in BCG-induced cytokine expression.
Previous reports have shown that MKP-1 induced by LPS or peptidoglycan is dependent on p38 MAPK [14] . Accordingly, BCG-induced MKP-1 can be inhibited by both p38 MAPK and ERK1/2 inhibitors. Interestingly, it has been shown that degradation of MKP-1 is reduced after ERK1/2 phosphorylation [15] . It can be hypothesized that BCG-induced MKP-1 proteins can be stabilized by ERK1/2 and the detailed mechanisms involved require more exploration. Also, since the inhibition of MKP-1 expression by both inhibitors (for p38 MAPK and ERK1/ 2) was not complete, it is believed that other proteins may be involved in the BCG-induced MKP-1 expression.
On the basis of the literature results on LPS effects ( Figure 6 ), the original expectation for this project is that MKP-1 acts as a negative regulator. LPS-stimulated MKP-1 KO peritoneal macrophages showed prolonged phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and JNK as well as increased production of TNF-α [9] . In doing so, LPS-induced MKP-1 could BCG-induced MAPK phosphorylation is decreased by MKP-1 siRNA prevent prolonged TNF-α production as in sepsis which may lead to severe damage to the host. It was expected that BCG induces MKP-1 and its induction would correlate with the dephosphorylation of MAPKs including p38 MAPK. By blocking the MKP-1 using siRNA, it was expected to have increased p38 MAPK phosphorylation and prolonged TNF-α production in response to BCG. Nevertheless, our results shown here are diametrically opposite. One possibility for the unexpected results may be due to non-specific effects of transfection or siRNA. However, this was not the case since there was a prolonged and increased TNF-α expression after the MKP-1 siRNA-transfected monocytes were treated with LPS (Figure 4C ).
There is now a new hypothesis to explain such paradoxical effects of MKP-1 in TNF-α regulation in which the phosphatase plays a role in positive regulation of TNF-α production in response to BCG as in the case of DUSP2 [13] . The structures of MKP-1 and DUSP2 are similar, with which they both contain a MAPK-interacting domain and a phosphatase catalytic site. By contrast, other DUSP may have extra domains, e.g., PEST [6] . Here, we postulate that the function of MKP-1 in BCG-induced signaling is similar to that of the DUSP2/PAC1.
Actually, the discovery of DUSP2 has initially created some paradoxical questions. As described, DUSP2 behaves differently from other MKP family members [13] . In DUSP2 KO macrophages treated with LPS, they produced less inflammatory mediators including less TNF, IL-6, nitric oxide, and IL-12-producing cells, when compared to that of the wild type counterparts [13] . Indeed, the results of these published studies on DUSP2 studies are quite similar to that of our reported results here.
It is plausible that these unexpected positive regulations of immune cell functions by DUSP2 were due to crosstalks between MAPKs [13] . It was shown that there are interactions between JNK and ERK1/2 pathways [16] .
Here, we showed that the sustained activation of JNK blocks ERK activation ( Figure 6 ). In the DUSP2 situation, stimulation of KO mast cells and macrophages shows increased phosphorylation of JNK, and inhibition of JNK by its own specific inhibitor restores phosphorylation of ERK1/2 [13] .
In the BCG-MKP-1 situation, there is an early phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Therefore, it is possible that JNK may play a role in the crosstalk interaction of MAPK. However, our preliminary data suggest that the level of phosphorylated JNK was not increased in PBMo MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection Figure 6 MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. LPS model was provided according to literature findings (Left). In this scenario, LPS activates MKP-1, which in turn dephosphorylates and deactivates phospho-p38 MAPK, resulting in less TNF-α induction. However, the situation in DHP-HSA activation of DUSP2 is more complicated (Middle), since the phosphatase activity causes subsequent inhibition of phospho-JNK which leads to the derepression of phospho-p38 MAPK. Consequently, the combined effects of this cascade results in more TNF-α expression. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 (Right) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case (Right), there was an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, and the unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation leading to more TNF-α induction. The details and kinase targets are yet to be identified. transfected with MKP-1 siRNA (data not shown). Thus, the details of the crosstalk between MAPKs need further investigation. Here, we present a model to summarize the results and to hypothesize the existence of an as yet unidentified intermediary factor or factors in the pathways downstream of MKP-1 effects in the BCG-induced signaling cascade. The unexpected antimycobacterial role of MKP-1 ( Figure 6 ) may be explained by events similar to the DUSP2 effects. In this case, BCG induces MKP-1 expression while also activates MAPKs including p38 MAPK and ERK1/2. Downstream of MKP-1, there is an inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases. The unknown factor in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, which ultimately leads to more TNF-α induction ( Figure 6 ).
In summary, MKP-1 plays a critical role in the regulation of cytokine expression upon mycobacterial infection. Inhibition of unknown pathways or kinases downstream of MKP-1, which in turn inhibits MAPKs activation, may be used to explain the novel function of MKP-1 in enhancing MAPK activity and consequent TNF-α expression following BCG treatment ( Figure 6 ). Taken together, the role of MAPK crosstalks need further exploration. (3) TNF-α, 30 cycles (TM = 56°C), upstream, 5'-GGCTCCAGGCGGTGCTTGTTC-3', downstream, 5'-AGACGGCGATGCGGCTGATG-3'. PCR products were analyzed on a 1% agarose gel with ethidium bromide and visualized under ultraviolet light. In order to check the size of the PCR products, 1 kb Plus DNA Lad-der™ (Invitrogen, USA) was run along with the PCR products.
To perform QPCR, the levels of MKP-1, and TNF-α mRNA as well as the reference gene GAPDH (as internal control) were assayed by the gene-specific Assays-on-Demand reagent kits (Applied Biosystems, USA). All samples were run in duplicates or triplicates and with no template controls on an ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detector. The analysis method of QPCR was the comparative cycle number to threshold (C T ) method as described in user bulletin no. 2 of the ABI Prism 7700 Sequence Detection System. The number of C T of the targeted genes was normalized to that of GAPDH in each sample (ΔC T ). The C T value of the treated cells was compared with that of the untreated or mock-treated cells (ΔΔCT). The relative gene expression of the targeted genes (fold induction) was calculated as 2 -ΔΔCT .
Total cellular proteins were extracted by lysing cells in lysis buffer containing 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% NP-40, 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA (pH 8.0), 1% SDS, 0.2 mg/ml PMSF, 1 μg/ml aprotinin, 1 mM sodium orthovanadate, 2 μg/ml pepstatin, 2 μg/ml leupeptin, and 50 mM sodium fluoride for 5 minutes. The homogenate was then boiled for 10 minutes and stored at -70°C until use. The concentrations of total protein in cell extracts were determined by BCA™ Protein Assay Kit (Pierce, IL, USA).
Western blot was done as described [20] . Equal amounts of protein were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE, electroblotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (Schleicher & Schuell), and followed by probing with specific antibod-ies for Actin, MKP-1 (Santa Cruz Biotech., USA), phospho-p38 MAPK, phospho-ERK1/2 (Cell Signaling, USA). After three washes, the membranes were incubated with the corresponding secondary antibodies. The bands were detected using the Enhanced Chemiluminescence System (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) as per the manufacturer's instructions.
Transfection of siRNA into human monocytes was done as described [21] . MKP-1 siRNA included (i) MKP1-HSS102982, AAACGCUUCGUAUCCUCCUUUGAGG; (ii) MKP1-HSS102983, UUAUGCCCAAGGCAUCCAG-CAUGUC; and (iii) MKP1-HSS102984, UGAUG-GAGUCUAUGAAGUCAAUGGC. MKP-1 knockdown in PBMo was conducted by using MKP1-HSS102983 only or a pool of the above three different MKP-1 Stealth™ Select RNAi (ratio = 1:1:1, 200 nM, Invitrogen, USA). Stealth™ RNAi Negative Control Duplex (200 nM) was used as a control for sequence independent effects for the siRNA transfection. Transfection of monocytes was done by using jetPEI™ DNA transfection reagent (Polyplus Transfection, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. After transfecting the cells for 24 h, the transfectants were treated with different inducers as described above.
Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t test. Differences were considered statistically significant when p values were less than 0.05. | What protein is in the critical path of immunity and cytokine expression? | {
"answer_start": [
7415
],
"text": [
"MAPK"
]
} | false |
1,241 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What diminishes the effectiveness of annual influenza vaccinations? | {
"answer_start": [
415
],
"text": [
"Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains"
]
} | false |
1,242 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | what new type of influenza vaccines are needed? | {
"answer_start": [
652
],
"text": [
"efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines."
]
} | false |
1,243 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What alternatives to classical vectored vaccines are needed? | {
"answer_start": [
784
],
"text": [
"Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines"
]
} | false |
1,244 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the advantage of virus vectored vaccine? | {
"answer_start": [
1082
],
"text": [
"a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract "
]
} | false |
1,245 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the advantage of virus vectored vaccines? | {
"answer_start": [
890
],
"text": [
" virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. "
]
} | false |
1,246 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is one of the issues with present vaccines? | {
"answer_start": [
1987
],
"text": [
" low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly"
]
} | false |
1,247 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What general types of vaccines are available? | {
"answer_start": [
2685
],
"text": [
"trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms)"
]
} | false |
1,248 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What inactivated vaccines are available? | {
"answer_start": [
2912
],
"text": [
"whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines."
]
} | false |
1,254 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | How is the split virus inactivated? | {
"answer_start": [
3009
],
"text": [
"the virus is disrupted by a detergent"
]
} | false |
1,257 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | How is the TIV administered? | {
"answer_start": [
3164
],
"text": [
"intramuscularly "
]
} | false |
1,259 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What does the TIV contain? | {
"answer_start": [
3192
],
"text": [
" three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. "
]
} | false |
1,261 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | How is the TIV efficacy measured? | {
"answer_start": [
3337
],
"text": [
"humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein,"
]
} | false |
1,264 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | Which is the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza virus? | {
"answer_start": [
3362
],
"text": [
"hemagglutinin (HA) protein,"
]
} | false |
1,472 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | How is the serum antibody response measured? | {
"answer_start": [
3493
],
"text": [
" by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay,"
]
} | false |
1,473 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is a gold standard for correlation with immunity to influenza? | {
"answer_start": [
3549
],
"text": [
"strain-specific HI titer "
]
} | false |
1,474 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the indication for protection to influenza? | {
"answer_start": [
3646
],
"text": [
" a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective "
]
} | false |
1,475 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What gives protection against clinical disease? | {
"answer_start": [
3812
],
"text": [
"serum antibodies"
]
} | false |
1,476 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What can give protection against clinical disease? | {
"answer_start": [
3839
],
"text": [
"mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection"
]
} | false |
1,477 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | How is the LAIV administered? | {
"answer_start": [
4255
],
"text": [
"nasal spray"
]
} | false |
1,478 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What does the LAIV contain? | {
"answer_start": [
4280
],
"text": [
"the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone "
]
} | false |
1,480 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | Do LAIV replicate at body temperature? | {
"answer_start": [
4446
],
"text": [
"they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature"
]
} | false |
1,481 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is a characteristic of LAIV? | {
"answer_start": [
4395
],
"text": [
"LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted "
]
} | false |
1,482 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | Where do the LAIV replicate? | {
"answer_start": [
4510
],
"text": [
"replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx"
]
} | false |
1,483 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What does LAIV immunization do? | {
"answer_start": [
4560
],
"text": [
"LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses."
]
} | false |
1,484 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What do the inactivated vaccines rely on? | {
"answer_start": [
5071
],
"text": [
"specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection."
]
} | false |
1,485 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What enables virus invasion from immunity? | {
"answer_start": [
5161
],
"text": [
"The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations"
]
} | false |
1,486 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | When does the vaccine strain selection occur in the northern hemisphere? | {
"answer_start": [
5646
],
"text": [
"in February"
]
} | false |
1,487 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the efficacy of LAIV? | {
"answer_start": [
5998
],
"text": [
"it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children "
]
} | false |
1,488 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What does LAIV rely on? | {
"answer_start": [
6142
],
"text": [
"antigenic match"
]
} | false |
1,489 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the LAIV replacement schedule? | {
"answer_start": [
6161
],
"text": [
" the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV"
]
} | false |
1,490 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | Why LAIV may provide broader broader protection than TIV? | {
"answer_start": [
6313
],
"text": [
"due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses"
]
} | false |
1,491 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What has raised the possibility of universal influenza vaccine? | {
"answer_start": [
6642
],
"text": [
"improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens"
]
} | false |
1,492 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the advantage of recombinant DNA systems? | {
"answer_start": [
7008
],
"text": [
"allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome"
]
} | false |
1,493 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the advantage of recombinant DNA system? | {
"answer_start": [
7085
],
"text": [
"enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity"
]
} | false |
1,494 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the advantage of recombinant DNA systems? | {
"answer_start": [
7186
],
"text": [
"adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens"
]
} | false |
1,495 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the issue with each of these vaccines? | {
"answer_start": [
7389
],
"text": [
"is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection"
]
} | false |
1,496 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is a concern with these vaccines? | {
"answer_start": [
7466
],
"text": [
" like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals"
]
} | false |
1,497 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | How many serotypes of adenovirus are there? | {
"answer_start": [
7678
],
"text": [
"53 "
]
} | false |
1,498 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | Why adenovirus may be the safest vaccine vector? | {
"answer_start": [
7758
],
"text": [
" A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades"
]
} | false |
1,501 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | Which is the most studied serotype? | {
"answer_start": [
8062
],
"text": [
"Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) "
]
} | false |
1,503 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | Why is Ad5 is the most studied serotype? | {
"answer_start": [
8111
],
"text": [
"having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines"
]
} | false |
1,505 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | Why are adenovirus vectors most attractive? | {
"answer_start": [
8278
],
"text": [
"their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material "
]
} | false |
1,506 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the advantage of the adenovirus ? | {
"answer_start": [
8447
],
"text": [
"is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature "
]
} | false |
1,507 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the advantage of adenovirus vector? | {
"answer_start": [
8612
],
"text": [
"Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells "
]
} | false |
1,508 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the advantage of adenovirus? | {
"answer_start": [
8759
],
"text": [
"the virus can be purified by simple methods "
]
} | false |
1,509 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the advantage of adenovirus vaccines? | {
"answer_start": [
8809
],
"text": [
" Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery."
]
} | false |
1,512 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the advantage of oral capsule and intranasal deliveries? | {
"answer_start": [
9070
],
"text": [
"induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity "
]
} | false |
1,516 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What did the first report on adenovirus as a vector demonstrate? | {
"answer_start": [
9465
],
"text": [
"immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2)"
]
} | false |
1,524 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | Which rAd5 delivery has been tested? | {
"answer_start": [
9876
],
"text": [
"A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally "
]
} | false |
1,526 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What was the result of the rAd5-HA testing? | {
"answer_start": [
10040
],
"text": [
"The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers "
]
} | false |
1,530 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the result of rAd5 trials? | {
"answer_start": [
10212
],
"text": [
"clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy,"
]
} | false |
1,531 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is an example of failure of rAd5? | {
"answer_start": [
10425
],
"text": [
" a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male"
]
} | false |
1,535 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What was the failure of rAd5 vaccine for inducing HIV-1 specific T cell response? | {
"answer_start": [
10868
],
"text": [
"the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 "
]
} | false |
1,540 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What does immunization with adenovirus induce? | {
"answer_start": [
11409
],
"text": [
"potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses"
]
} | false |
1,543 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the advantage of inclusion of non-HA antigens to HA based vaccines? | {
"answer_start": [
12176
],
"text": [
" to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity"
]
} | false |
1,544 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is the disadvantage of inclusion of non-HA antigens to HA based vaccines? | {
"answer_start": [
12281
],
"text": [
"as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use "
]
} | false |
1,579 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What was the first reported baculovirus vector based vaccine for influenza? | {
"answer_start": [
20353
],
"text": [
" using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) "
]
} | false |
1,549 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What is a drawback of Ad5 vector? | {
"answer_start": [
12531
],
"text": [
"preexisting immunity,"
]
} | false |
1,550 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What alternatives to Ad5 vector have been explored? | {
"answer_start": [
12568
],
"text": [
"adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes"
]
} | false |
1,551 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What animal adenoviruses have been shown to induce immunity comparable to rdA5-HA? | {
"answer_start": [
12932
],
"text": [
"Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens "
]
} | false |
1,553 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | what can evade anti-Ad5 response and also provide effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity? | {
"answer_start": [
13193
],
"text": [
" Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35"
]
} | false |
1,557 | Virus-Vectored Influenza Virus Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147686/
SHA: f6d2afb2ec44d8656972ea79f8a833143bbeb42b
Authors: Tripp, Ralph A.; Tompkins, S. Mark
Date: 2014-08-07
DOI: 10.3390/v6083055
License: cc-by
Abstract: Despite the availability of an inactivated vaccine that has been licensed for >50 years, the influenza virus continues to cause morbidity and mortality worldwide. Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains diminishes the effectiveness of annual vaccines that rely on a match with circulating influenza strains. Thus, there is a continued need for new, efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines are an appealing alternative to classical inactivated vaccines because virus vectors enable native expression of influenza antigens, even from virulent influenza viruses, while expressed in the context of the vector that can improve immunogenicity. In addition, a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract enabling protection from influenza virus infection. Moreover, the ability to readily manipulate virus vectors to produce novel influenza vaccines may provide the quickest path toward a universal vaccine protecting against all influenza viruses. This review will discuss experimental virus-vectored vaccines for use in humans, comparing them to licensed vaccines and the hurdles faced for licensure of these next-generation influenza virus vaccines.
Text: Seasonal influenza is a worldwide health problem causing high mobility and substantial mortality [1] [2] [3] [4] . Moreover, influenza infection often worsens preexisting medical conditions [5] [6] [7] . Vaccines against circulating influenza strains are available and updated annually, but many issues are still present, including low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly [8, 9] . Despite increasing vaccination rates, influenza-related hospitalizations are increasing [8, 10] , and substantial drug resistance has developed to two of the four currently approved anti-viral drugs [11, 12] . While adjuvants have the potential to improve efficacy and availability of current inactivated vaccines, live-attenuated and virus-vectored vaccines are still considered one of the best options for the induction of broad and efficacious immunity to the influenza virus [13] .
The general types of influenza vaccines available in the United States are trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms). There are three types of inactivated vaccines that include whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. In split virus vaccines, the virus is disrupted by a detergent. In subunit vaccines, HA and NA have been further purified by removal of other viral components. TIV is administered intramuscularly and contains three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. TIV efficacy is measured by induction of humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, the major surface and attachment glycoprotein on influenza. Serum antibody responses to HA are measured by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, and the strain-specific HI titer is considered the gold-standard correlate of immunity to influenza where a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective [4, 14] . Protection against clinical disease is mainly conferred by serum antibodies; however, mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection. Split virus inactivated vaccines can induce neuraminidase (NA)-specific antibody responses [15] [16] [17] , and anti-NA antibodies have been associated with protection from infection in humans [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . Currently, NA-specific antibody responses are not considered a correlate of protection [14] . LAIV is administered as a nasal spray and contains the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone [4] . LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted so they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature, but replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx [23] . LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. While robust serum antibody and nasal wash (mucosal) antibody responses are associated with protection from infection, other immune responses, such as CD8 + cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) responses may contribute to protection and there is not a clear correlate of immunity for LAIV [4, 14, 24] .
Currently licensed influenza virus vaccines suffer from a number of issues. The inactivated vaccines rely on specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations, enabling virus evasion from immunity [9, 25] . Thus, the circulating influenza A and B strains are reviewed annually for antigenic match with current vaccines, Replacement of vaccine strains may occur regularly, and annual vaccination is recommended to assure protection [4, 26, 27] . For the northern hemisphere, vaccine strain selection occurs in February and then manufacturers begin production, taking at least six months to produce the millions of vaccine doses required for the fall [27] . If the prediction is imperfect, or if manufacturers have issues with vaccine production, vaccine efficacy or availability can be compromised [28] . LAIV is not recommended for all populations; however, it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children [4, 9, 24] . While LAIV relies on antigenic match and the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV [4, 9] , there is some suggestion that LAIV may induce broader protection than TIV due to the diversity of the immune response consistent with inducing virus-neutralizing serum and mucosal antibodies, as well as broadly reactive T cell responses [9, 23, 29] . While overall both TIV and LAIV are considered safe and effective, there is a recognized need for improved seasonal influenza vaccines [26] . Moreover, improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens has raised the possibility of a universal vaccine, and these universal antigens will likely require novel vaccines for effective delivery [30] [31] [32] .
Virus-vectored vaccines share many of the advantages of LAIV, as well as those unique to the vectors. Recombinant DNA systems exist that allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome. This in turn enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity, in addition to adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens. Many of these vectors have been extensively studied or used as vaccines against wild type forms of the virus. Finally, each of these vaccine vectors is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection, although like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals still remains a concern [4, 13, [33] [34] [35] . Table 1 summarizes the benefits and concerns of each of the virus-vectored vaccines discussed here.
There are 53 serotypes of adenovirus, many of which have been explored as vaccine vectors. A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades, suggesting adenoviruses may be safe for widespread vaccine use [36] . However, safety concerns have led to the majority of adenovirus-based vaccine development to focus on replication-defective vectors. Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) is the most-studied serotype, having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines.
Adenovirus vectors are attractive as vaccine vectors because their genome is very stable and there are a variety of recombinant systems available which can accommodate up to 10 kb of recombinant genetic material [37] . Adenovirus is a non-enveloped virus which is relatively stable and can be formulated for long-term storage at 4 °C, or even storage up to six months at room temperature [33] . Adenovirus vaccines can be grown to high titers, exceeding 10 1° plaque forming units (PFU) per mL when cultured on 293 or PER.C6 cells [38] , and the virus can be purified by simple methods [39] . Adenovirus vaccines can also be delivered via multiple routes, including intramuscular injection, subcutaneous injection, intradermal injection, oral delivery using a protective capsule, and by intranasal delivery. Importantly, the latter two delivery methods induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity [33] . Even replication-defective adenovirus vectors are naturally immunostimulatory and effective adjuvants to the recombinant antigen being delivered. Adenovirus has been extensively studied as a vaccine vector for human disease. The first report using adenovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza demonstrated immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2). Intramuscular immunization of mice with this construct induced robust neutralizing antibody responses and protected mice from challenge with a heterologous virus, A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) [40] . Replication defective rAd5 vaccines expressing influenza HA have also been tested in humans. A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally and assayed for safety and immunogenicity. The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers [41] . While clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, rAd5 as a vector has been negatively overshadowed by two clinical trial failures. The first trial was a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male [42, 43] . The second clinical failure was using an Ad5-vectored HIV vaccine being tested as a part of a Step Study, a phase 2B clinical trial. In this study, individuals were vaccinated with the Ad5 vaccine vector expressing HIV-1 gag, pol, and nef genes. The vaccine induced HIV-specific T cell responses; however, the study was stopped after interim analysis suggested the vaccine did not achieve efficacy and individuals with high preexisting Ad5 antibody titers might have an increased risk of acquiring HIV-1 [44] [45] [46] . Subsequently, the rAd5 vaccine-associated risk was confirmed [47] . While these two instances do not suggest Ad-vector vaccines are unsafe or inefficacious, the umbra cast by the clinical trials notes has affected interest for all adenovirus vaccines, but interest still remains.
Immunization with adenovirus vectors induces potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses. Recombinant Ad vaccines expressing HA antigens from pandemic H1N1 (pH1N1), H5 and H7 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus (HPAIV), and H9 avian influenza viruses have been tested for efficacy in a number of animal models, including chickens, mice, and ferrets, and been shown to be efficacious and provide protection from challenge [48, 49] . Several rAd5 vectors have been explored for delivery of non-HA antigens, influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix 2 (M2) protein [29, [50] [51] [52] . The efficacy of non-HA antigens has led to their inclusion with HA-based vaccines to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity [53, 54] . However, as both CD8 + T cell and neutralizing antibody responses are generated by the vector and vaccine antigens, immunological memory to these components can reduce efficacy and limit repeated use [48] .
One drawback of an Ad5 vector is the potential for preexisting immunity, so alternative adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes. Non-human adenovirus vectors include those from non-human primates (NHP), dogs, sheep, pigs, cows, birds and others [48, 55] . These vectors can infect a variety of cell types, but are generally attenuated in humans avoiding concerns of preexisting immunity. Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens have been shown to induce immunity comparable to human rAd5-H5 vaccines [33, 56] . Recombinant, replication-defective adenoviruses from low-prevalence serotypes have also been shown to be efficacious. Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 can evade anti-Ad5 immune responses while maintaining effective antigen delivery and immunogenicity [48, 57] . Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization have also been explored as a means to avoided preexisting immunity [52] .
Adeno-associated viruses (AAV) were first explored as gene therapy vectors. Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types [58] . AAVs had been generally not considered as vaccine vectors because they were widely considered to be poorly immunogenic. A seminal study using AAV-2 to express a HSV-2 glycoprotein showed this virus vaccine vector effectively induced potent CD8 + T cell and serum antibody responses, thereby opening the door to other rAAV vaccine-associated studies [59, 60] .
AAV vector systems have a number of engaging properties. The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated [61] . As members of the parvovirus family, AAVs are small non-enveloped viruses that are stable and amenable to long-term storage without a cold chain. While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. Modifications to the vector have increased immunogenicity, as well [60] .
There are limited studies using AAVs as vaccine vectors for influenza. An AAV expressing an HA antigen was first shown to induce protective in 2001 [62] . Later, a hybrid AAV derived from two non-human primate isolates (AAVrh32.33) was used to express influenza NP and protect against PR8 challenge in mice [63] . Most recently, following the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, rAAV vectors were generated expressing the HA, NP and matrix 1 (M1) proteins of A/Mexico/4603/2009 (pH1N1), and in murine immunization and challenge studies, the rAAV-HA and rAAV-NP were shown to be protective; however, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + NP + M1 had the most robust protection. Also, mice vaccinated with rAAV-HA + rAAV-NP + rAAV-M1 were also partially protected against heterologous (PR8, H1N1) challenge [63] . Most recently, an AAV vector was used to deliver passive immunity to influenza [64, 65] . In these studies, AAV (AAV8 and AAV9) was used to deliver an antibody transgene encoding a broadly cross-protective anti-influenza monoclonal antibody for in vivo expression. Both intramuscular and intranasal delivery of the AAVs was shown to protect against a number of influenza virus challenges in mice and ferrets, including H1N1 and H5N1 viruses [64, 65] . These studies suggest that rAAV vectors are promising vaccine and immunoprophylaxis vectors. To this point, while approximately 80 phase I, I/II, II, or III rAAV clinical trials are open, completed, or being reviewed, these have focused upon gene transfer studies and so there is as yet limited safety data for use of rAAV as vaccines [66] .
Alphaviruses are positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses of the Togaviridae family. A variety of alphaviruses have been developed as vaccine vectors, including Semliki Forest virus (SFV), Sindbis (SIN) virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) virus, as well as chimeric viruses incorporating portions of SIN and VEE viruses. The replication defective vaccines or replicons do not encode viral structural proteins, having these portions of the genome replaces with transgenic material.
The structural proteins are provided in cell culture production systems. One important feature of the replicon systems is the self-replicating nature of the RNA. Despite the partial viral genome, the RNAs are self-replicating and can express transgenes at very high levels [67] .
SIN, SFV, and VEE have all been tested for efficacy as vaccine vectors for influenza virus [68] [69] [70] [71] . A VEE-based replicon system encoding the HA from PR8 was demonstrated to induce potent HA-specific immune response and protected from challenge in a murine model, despite repeated immunization with the vector expressing a control antigen, suggesting preexisting immunity may not be an issue for the replicon vaccine [68] . A separate study developed a VEE replicon system expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (H5N1) and demonstrated varying efficacy after in ovo vaccination or vaccination of 1-day-old chicks [70] . A recombinant SIN virus was use as a vaccine vector to deliver a CD8 + T cell epitope only. The well-characterized NP epitope was transgenically expressed in the SIN system and shown to be immunogenic in mice, priming a robust CD8 + T cell response and reducing influenza virus titer after challenge [69] . More recently, a VEE replicon system expressing the HA protein of PR8 was shown to protect young adult (8-week-old) and aged (12-month-old) mice from lethal homologous challenge [72] .
The VEE replicon systems are particularly appealing as the VEE targets antigen-presenting cells in the lymphatic tissues, priming rapid and robust immune responses [73] . VEE replicon systems can induce robust mucosal immune responses through intranasal or subcutaneous immunization [72] [73] [74] , and subcutaneous immunization with virus-like replicon particles (VRP) expressing HA-induced antigen-specific systemic IgG and fecal IgA antibodies [74] . VRPs derived from VEE virus have been developed as candidate vaccines for cytomegalovirus (CMV). A phase I clinical trial with the CMV VRP showed the vaccine was immunogenic, inducing CMV-neutralizing antibody responses and potent T cell responses. Moreover, the vaccine was well tolerated and considered safe [75] . A separate clinical trial assessed efficacy of repeated immunization with a VRP expressing a tumor antigen. The vaccine was safe and despite high vector-specific immunity after initial immunization, continued to boost transgene-specific immune responses upon boost [76] . While additional clinical data is needed, these reports suggest alphavirus replicon systems or VRPs may be safe and efficacious, even in the face of preexisting immunity.
Baculovirus has been extensively used to produce recombinant proteins. Recently, a baculovirus-derived recombinant HA vaccine was approved for human use and was first available for use in the United States for the 2013-2014 influenza season [4] . Baculoviruses have also been explored as vaccine vectors. Baculoviruses have a number of advantages as vaccine vectors. The viruses have been extensively studied for protein expression and for pesticide use and so are readily manipulated. The vectors can accommodate large gene insertions, show limited cytopathic effect in mammalian cells, and have been shown to infect and express genes of interest in a spectrum of mammalian cells [77] . While the insect promoters are not effective for mammalian gene expression, appropriate promoters can be cloned into the baculovirus vaccine vectors.
Baculovirus vectors have been tested as influenza vaccines, with the first reported vaccine using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) [77] . Intramuscular, intranasal, intradermal, and intraperitoneal immunization or mice with AcCAG-HA elicited HA-specific antibody responses, however only intranasal immunization provided protection from lethal challenge. Interestingly, intranasal immunization with the wild type AcNPV also resulted in protection from PR8 challenge. The robust innate immune response to the baculovirus provided non-specific protection from subsequent influenza virus infection [78] . While these studies did not demonstrate specific protection, there were antigen-specific immune responses and potential adjuvant effects by the innate response.
Baculovirus pseudotype viruses have also been explored. The G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus controlled by the insect polyhedron promoter and the HA of A/Chicken/Hubei/327/2004 (H5N1) HPAIV controlled by a CMV promoter were used to generate the BV-G-HA. Intramuscular immunization of mice or chickens with BV-G-HA elicited strong HI and VN serum antibody responses, IFN-γ responses, and protected from H5N1 challenge [79] . A separate study demonstrated efficacy using a bivalent pseudotyped baculovirus vector [80] .
Baculovirus has also been used to generate an inactivated particle vaccine. The HA of A/Indonesia/CDC669/2006(H5N1) was incorporated into a commercial baculovirus vector controlled by the e1 promoter from White Spot Syndrome Virus. The resulting recombinant virus was propagated in insect (Sf9) cells and inactivated as a particle vaccine [81, 82] . Intranasal delivery with cholera toxin B as an adjuvant elicited robust HI titers and protected from lethal challenge [81] . Oral delivery of this encapsulated vaccine induced robust serum HI titers and mucosal IgA titers in mice, and protected from H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, co-formulations of inactivated baculovirus vectors have also been shown to be effective in mice [83] .
While there is growing data on the potential use of baculovirus or pseudotyped baculovirus as a vaccine vector, efficacy data in mammalian animal models other than mice is lacking. There is also no data on the safety in humans, reducing enthusiasm for baculovirus as a vaccine vector for influenza at this time.
Newcastle disease virus (NDV) is a single-stranded, negative-sense RNA virus that causes disease in poultry. NDV has a number of appealing qualities as a vaccine vector. As an avian virus, there is little or no preexisting immunity to NDV in humans and NDV propagates to high titers in both chicken eggs and cell culture. As a paramyxovirus, there is no DNA phase in the virus lifecycle reducing concerns of integration events, and the levels of gene expression are driven by the proximity to the leader sequence at the 3' end of the viral genome. This gradient of gene expression enables attenuation through rearrangement of the genome, or by insertion of transgenes within the genome. Finally, pathogenicity of NDV is largely determined by features of the fusion protein enabling ready attenuation of the vaccine vector [84] .
Reverse genetics, a method that allows NDV to be rescued from plasmids expressing the viral RNA polymerase and nucleocapsid proteins, was first reported in 1999 [85, 86] . This process has enabled manipulation of the NDV genome as well as incorporation of transgenes and the development of NDV vectors. Influenza was the first infectious disease targeted with a recombinant NDV (rNDV) vector. The HA protein of A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was inserted into the Hitchner B1 vaccine strain. The HA protein was expressed on infected cells and was incorporated into infectious virions. While the virus was attenuated compared to the parental vaccine strain, it induced a robust serum antibody response and protected against homologous influenza virus challenge in a murine model of infection [87] . Subsequently, rNDV was tested as a vaccine vector for HPAIV having varying efficacy against H5 and H7 influenza virus infections in poultry [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] . These vaccines have the added benefit of potentially providing protection against both the influenza virus and NDV infection.
NDV has also been explored as a vaccine vector for humans. Two NHP studies assessed the immunogenicity and efficacy of an rNDV expressing the HA or NA of A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1; VN1203) [95, 96] . Intranasal and intratracheal delivery of the rNDV-HA or rNDV-NA vaccines induced both serum and mucosal antibody responses and protected from HPAIV challenge [95, 96] . NDV has limited clinical data; however, phase I and phase I/II clinical trials have shown that the NDV vector is well-tolerated, even at high doses delivered intravenously [44, 97] . While these results are promising, additional studies are needed to advance NDV as a human vaccine vector for influenza.
Parainfluenza virus type 5 (PIV5) is a paramyxovirus vaccine vector being explored for delivery of influenza and other infectious disease vaccine antigens. PIV5 has only recently been described as a vaccine vector [98] . Similar to other RNA viruses, PIV5 has a number of features that make it an attractive vaccine vector. For example, PIV5 has a stable RNA genome and no DNA phase in virus replication cycle reducing concerns of host genome integration or modification. PIV5 can be grown to very high titers in mammalian vaccine cell culture substrates and is not cytopathic allowing for extended culture and harvest of vaccine virus [98, 99] . Like NDV, PIV5 has a 3'-to 5' gradient of gene expression and insertion of transgenes at different locations in the genome can variably attenuate the virus and alter transgene expression [100] . PIV5 has broad tropism, infecting many cell types, tissues, and species without causing clinical disease, although PIV5 has been associated with -kennel cough‖ in dogs [99] . A reverse genetics system for PIV5 was first used to insert the HA gene from A/Udorn/307/72 (H3N2) into the PIV5 genome between the hemagglutinin-neuraminidase (HN) gene and the large (L) polymerase gene. Similar to NDV, the HA was expressed at high levels in infected cells and replicated similarly to the wild type virus, and importantly, was not pathogenic in immunodeficient mice [98] . Additionally, a single intranasal immunization in a murine model of influenza infection was shown to induce neutralizing antibody responses and protect against a virus expressing homologous HA protein [98] . PIV5 has also been explored as a vaccine against HPAIV. Recombinant PIV5 vaccines expressing the HA or NP from VN1203 were tested for efficacy in a murine challenge model. Mice intranasally vaccinated with a single dose of PIV5-H5 vaccine had robust serum and mucosal antibody responses, and were protected from lethal challenge. Notably, although cellular immune responses appeared to contribute to protection, serum antibody was sufficient for protection from challenge [100, 101] . Intramuscular immunization with PIV5-H5 was also shown to be effective at inducing neutralizing antibody responses and protecting against lethal influenza virus challenge [101] . PIV5 expressing the NP protein of HPAIV was also efficacious in the murine immunization and challenge model, where a single intranasal immunization induced robust CD8 + T cell responses and protected against homologous (H5N1) and heterosubtypic (H1N1) virus challenge [102] .
Currently there is no clinical safety data for use of PIV5 in humans. However, live PIV5 has been a component of veterinary vaccines for -kennel cough‖ for >30 years, and veterinarians and dog owners are exposed to live PIV5 without reported disease [99] . This combined with preclinical data from a variety of animal models suggests that PIV5 as a vector is likely to be safe in humans. As preexisting immunity is a concern for all virus-vectored vaccines, it should be noted that there is no data on the levels of preexisting immunity to PIV5 in humans. However, a study evaluating the efficacy of a PIV5-H3 vaccine in canines previously vaccinated against PIV5 (kennel cough) showed induction of robust anti-H3 serum antibody responses as well as high serum antibody levels to the PIV5 vaccine, suggesting preexisting immunity to the PIV5 vector may not affect immunogenicity of vaccines even with repeated use [99] .
Poxvirus vaccines have a long history and the notable hallmark of being responsible for eradication of smallpox. The termination of the smallpox virus vaccination program has resulted in a large population of poxvirus-naï ve individuals that provides the opportunity for the use of poxviruses as vectors without preexisting immunity concerns [103] . Poxvirus-vectored vaccines were first proposed for use in 1982 with two reports of recombinant vaccinia viruses encoding and expressing functional thymidine kinase gene from herpes virus [104, 105] . Within a year, a vaccinia virus encoding the HA of an H2N2 virus was shown to express a functional HA protein (cleaved in the HA1 and HA2 subunits) and be immunogenic in rabbits and hamsters [106] . Subsequently, all ten of the primary influenza proteins have been expressed in vaccine virus [107] .
Early work with intact vaccinia virus vectors raised safety concerns, as there was substantial reactogenicity that hindered recombinant vaccine development [108] . Two vaccinia vectors were developed to address these safety concerns. The modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) strain was attenuated by passage 530 times in chick embryo fibroblasts cultures. The second, New York vaccinia virus (NYVAC) was a plaque-purified clone of the Copenhagen vaccine strain rationally attenuated by deletion of 18 open reading frames [109] [110] [111] .
Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) was developed prior to smallpox eradication to reduce or prevent adverse effects of other smallpox vaccines [109] . Serial tissue culture passage of MVA resulted in loss of 15% of the genome, and established a growth restriction for avian cells. The defects affected late stages in virus assembly in non-avian cells, a feature enabling use of the vector as single-round expression vector in non-permissive hosts. Interestingly, over two decades ago, recombinant MVA expressing the HA and NP of influenza virus was shown to be effective against lethal influenza virus challenge in a murine model [112] . Subsequently, MVA expressing various antigens from seasonal, pandemic (A/California/04/2009, pH1N1), equine (A/Equine/Kentucky/1/81 H3N8), and HPAI (VN1203) viruses have been shown to be efficacious in murine, ferret, NHP, and equine challenge models [113] . MVA vaccines are very effective stimulators of both cellular and humoral immunity. For example, abortive infection provides native expression of the influenza antigens enabling robust antibody responses to native surface viral antigens. Concurrently, the intracellular influenza peptides expressed by the pox vector enter the class I MHC antigen processing and presentation pathway enabling induction of CD8 + T cell antiviral responses. MVA also induces CD4 + T cell responses further contributing to the magnitude of the antigen-specific effector functions [107, [112] [113] [114] [115] . MVA is also a potent activator of early innate immune responses further enhancing adaptive immune responses [116] . Between early smallpox vaccine development and more recent vaccine vector development, MVA has undergone extensive safety testing and shown to be attenuated in severely immunocompromised animals and safe for use in children, adults, elderly, and immunocompromised persons. With extensive pre-clinical data, recombinant MVA vaccines expressing influenza antigens have been tested in clinical trials and been shown to be safe and immunogenic in humans [117] [118] [119] . These results combined with data from other (non-influenza) clinical and pre-clinical studies support MVA as a leading viral-vectored candidate vaccine.
The NYVAC vector is a highly attenuated vaccinia virus strain. NYVAC is replication-restricted; however, it grows in chick embryo fibroblasts and Vero cells enabling vaccine-scale production. In non-permissive cells, critical late structural proteins are not produced stopping replication at the immature virion stage [120] . NYVAC is very attenuated and considered safe for use in humans of all ages; however, it predominantly induces a CD4 + T cell response which is different compared to MVA [114] . Both MVA and NYVAC provoke robust humoral responses, and can be delivered mucosally to induce mucosal antibody responses [121] . There has been only limited exploration of NYVAC as a vaccine vector for influenza virus; however, a vaccine expressing the HA from A/chicken/Indonesia/7/2003 (H5N1) was shown to induce potent neutralizing antibody responses and protect against challenge in swine [122] .
While there is strong safety and efficacy data for use of NYVAC or MVA-vectored influenza vaccines, preexisting immunity remains a concern. Although the smallpox vaccination campaign has resulted in a population of poxvirus-naï ve people, the initiation of an MVA or NYVAC vaccination program for HIV, influenza or other pathogens will rapidly reduce this susceptible population. While there is significant interest in development of pox-vectored influenza virus vaccines, current influenza vaccination strategies rely upon regular immunization with vaccines matched to circulating strains. This would likely limit the use and/or efficacy of poxvirus-vectored influenza virus vaccines for regular and seasonal use [13] . Intriguingly, NYVAC may have an advantage for use as an influenza vaccine vector, because immunization with this vector induces weaker vaccine-specific immune responses compared to other poxvirus vaccines, a feature that may address the concerns surrounding preexisting immunity [123] .
While poxvirus-vectored vaccines have not yet been approved for use in humans, there is a growing list of licensed poxvirus for veterinary use that include fowlpox-and canarypox-vectored vaccines for avian and equine influenza viruses, respectively [124, 125] . The fowlpox-vectored vaccine expressing the avian influenza virus HA antigen has the added benefit of providing protection against fowlpox infection. Currently, at least ten poxvirus-vectored vaccines have been licensed for veterinary use [126] . These poxvirus vectors have the potential for use as vaccine vectors in humans, similar to the first use of cowpox for vaccination against smallpox [127] . The availability of these non-human poxvirus vectors with extensive animal safety and efficacy data may address the issues with preexisting immunity to the human vaccine strains, although the cross-reactivity originally described with cowpox could also limit use.
Influenza vaccines utilizing vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), a rhabdovirus, as a vaccine vector have a number of advantages shared with other RNA virus vaccine vectors. Both live and replication-defective VSV vaccine vectors have been shown to be immunogenic [128, 129] , and like Paramyxoviridae, the Rhabdoviridae genome has a 3'-to-5' gradient of gene expression enabling attention by selective vaccine gene insertion or genome rearrangement [130] . VSV has a number of other advantages including broad tissue tropism, and the potential for intramuscular or intranasal immunization. The latter delivery method enables induction of mucosal immunity and elimination of needles required for vaccination. Also, there is little evidence of VSV seropositivity in humans eliminating concerns of preexisting immunity, although repeated use may be a concern. Also, VSV vaccine can be produced using existing mammalian vaccine manufacturing cell lines.
Influenza antigens were first expressed in a VSV vector in 1997. Both the HA and NA were shown to be expressed as functional proteins and incorporated into the recombinant VSV particles [131] . Subsequently, VSV-HA, expressing the HA protein from A/WSN/1933 (H1N1) was shown to be immunogenic and protect mice from lethal influenza virus challenge [129] . To reduce safety concerns, attenuated VSV vectors were developed. One candidate vaccine had a truncated VSV G protein, while a second candidate was deficient in G protein expression and relied on G protein expressed by a helper vaccine cell line to the provide the virus receptor. Both vectors were found to be attenuated in mice, but maintained immunogenicity [128] . More recently, single-cycle replicating VSV vaccines have been tested for efficacy against H5N1 HPAIV. VSV vectors expressing the HA from A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) were shown to be immunogenic and induce cross-reactive antibody responses and protect against challenge with heterologous H5N1 challenge in murine and NHP models [132] [133] [134] .
VSV vectors are not without potential concerns. VSV can cause disease in a number of species, including humans [135] . The virus is also potentially neuroinvasive in some species [136] , although NHP studies suggest this is not a concern in humans [137] . Also, while the incorporation of the influenza antigen in to the virion may provide some benefit in immunogenicity, changes in tropism or attenuation could arise from incorporation of different influenza glycoproteins. There is no evidence for this, however [134] . Currently, there is no human safety data for VSV-vectored vaccines. While experimental data is promising, additional work is needed before consideration for human influenza vaccination.
Current influenza vaccines rely on matching the HA antigen of the vaccine with circulating strains to provide strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses [4, 14, 24] . There is significant interest in developing universal influenza vaccines that would not require annual reformulation to provide protective robust and durable immunity. These vaccines rely on generating focused immune responses to highly conserved portions of the virus that are refractory to mutation [30] [31] [32] . Traditional vaccines may not be suitable for these vaccination strategies; however, vectored vaccines that have the ability to be readily modified and to express transgenes are compatible for these applications.
The NP and M2 proteins have been explored as universal vaccine antigens for decades. Early work with recombinant viral vectors demonstrated that immunization with vaccines expressing influenza antigens induced potent CD8 + T cell responses [107, [138] [139] [140] [141] . These responses, even to the HA antigen, could be cross-protective [138] . A number of studies have shown that immunization with NP expressed by AAV, rAd5, alphavirus vectors, MVA, or other vector systems induces potent CD8 + T cell responses and protects against influenza virus challenge [52, 63, 69, 102, 139, 142] . As the NP protein is highly conserved across influenza A viruses, NP-specific T cells can protect against heterologous and even heterosubtypic virus challenges [30] .
The M2 protein is also highly conserved and expressed on the surface of infected cells, although to a lesser extent on the surface of virus particles [30] . Much of the vaccine work in this area has focused on virus-like or subunit particles expressing the M2 ectodomain; however, studies utilizing a DNA-prime, rAd-boost strategies to vaccinate against the entire M2 protein have shown the antigen to be immunogenic and protective [50] . In these studies, antibodies to the M2 protein protected against homologous and heterosubtypic challenge, including a H5N1 HPAIV challenge. More recently, NP and M2 have been combined to induce broadly cross-reactive CD8 + T cell and antibody responses, and rAd5 vaccines expressing these antigens have been shown to protect against pH1N1 and H5N1 challenges [29, 51] .
Historically, the HA has not been widely considered as a universal vaccine antigen. However, the recent identification of virus neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that cross-react with many subtypes of influenza virus [143] has presented the opportunity to design vaccine antigens to prime focused antibody responses to the highly conserved regions recognized by these monoclonal antibodies. The majority of these broadly cross-reactive antibodies recognize regions on the stalk of the HA protein [143] . The HA stalk is generally less immunogenic compared to the globular head of the HA protein so most approaches have utilized -headless‖ HA proteins as immunogens. HA stalk vaccines have been designed using DNA and virus-like particles [144] and MVA [142] ; however, these approaches are amenable to expression in any of the viruses vectors described here.
The goal of any vaccine is to protect against infection and disease, while inducing population-based immunity to reduce or eliminate virus transmission within the population. It is clear that currently licensed influenza vaccines have not fully met these goals, nor those specific to inducing long-term, robust immunity. There are a number of vaccine-related issues that must be addressed before population-based influenza vaccination strategies are optimized. The concept of a -one size fits all‖ vaccine needs to be updated, given the recent ability to probe the virus-host interface through RNA interference approaches that facilitate the identification of host genes affecting virus replication, immunity, and disease. There is also a need for revision of the current influenza virus vaccine strategies for at-risk populations, particularly those at either end of the age spectrum. An example of an improved vaccine regime might include the use of a vectored influenza virus vaccine that expresses the HA, NA and M and/or NP proteins for the two currently circulating influenza A subtypes and both influenza B strains so that vaccine take and vaccine antigen levels are not an issue in inducing protective immunity. Recombinant live-attenuated or replication-deficient influenza viruses may offer an advantage for this and other approaches.
Vectored vaccines can be constructed to express full-length influenza virus proteins, as well as generate conformationally restricted epitopes, features critical in generating appropriate humoral protection. Inclusion of internal influenza antigens in a vectored vaccine can also induce high levels of protective cellular immunity. To generate sustained immunity, it is an advantage to induce immunity at sites of inductive immunity to natural infection, in this case the respiratory tract. Several vectored vaccines target the respiratory tract. Typically, vectored vaccines generate antigen for weeks after immunization, in contrast to subunit vaccination. This increased presence and level of vaccine antigen contributes to and helps sustain a durable memory immune response, even augmenting the selection of higher affinity antibody secreting cells. The enhanced memory response is in part linked to the intrinsic augmentation of immunity induced by the vector. Thus, for weaker antigens typical of HA, vectored vaccines have the capacity to overcome real limitations in achieving robust and durable protection.
Meeting the mandates of seasonal influenza vaccine development is difficult, and to respond to a pandemic strain is even more challenging. Issues with influenza vaccine strain selection based on recently circulating viruses often reflect recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO)-a process that is cumbersome. The strains of influenza A viruses to be used in vaccine manufacture are not wild-type viruses but rather reassortants that are hybrid viruses containing at least the HA and NA gene segments from the target strains and other gene segments from the master strain, PR8, which has properties of high growth in fertilized hen's eggs. This additional process requires more time and quality control, and specifically for HPAI viruses, it is a process that may fail because of the nature of those viruses. In contrast, viral-vectored vaccines are relatively easy to manipulate and produce, and have well-established safety profiles. There are several viral-based vectors currently employed as antigen delivery systems, including poxviruses, adenoviruses baculovirus, paramyxovirus, rhabdovirus, and others; however, the majority of human clinical trials assessing viral-vectored influenza vaccines use poxvirus and adenovirus vectors. While each of these vector approaches has unique features and is in different stages of development, the combined successes of these approaches supports the virus-vectored vaccine approach as a whole. Issues such as preexisting immunity and cold chain requirements, and lingering safety concerns will have to be overcome; however, each approach is making progress in addressing these issues, and all of the approaches are still viable. Virus-vectored vaccines hold particular promise for vaccination with universal or focused antigens where traditional vaccination methods are not suited to efficacious delivery of these antigens. The most promising approaches currently in development are arguably those targeting conserved HA stalk region epitopes. Given the findings to date, virus-vectored vaccines hold great promise and may overcome the current limitations of influenza vaccines. | What additional strategies have been explored to avoid preexisting immunity? | {
"answer_start": [
13372
],
"text": [
"Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization"
]
} | false |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.