document_id
int64 185
2.68k
| context
stringlengths 2.88k
70.8k
| question
stringlengths 11
194
| id
int64 225
5.32k
| answer
stringlengths 1
933
| answer_start
int64 157
69k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2,486 | Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030623
SHA: 9b0c87f808b1b66f2937d7a7acb524a756b6113b
Authors: Pang, Junxiong; Wang, Min Xian; Ang, Ian Yi Han; Tan, Sharon Hui Xuan; Lewis, Ruth Frances; Chen, Jacinta I. Pei; Gutierrez, Ramona A.; Gwee, Sylvia Xiao Wei; Chua, Pearleen Ee Yong; Yang, Qian; Ng, Xian Yi; Yap, Rowena K. S.; Tan, Hao Yi; Teo, Yik Ying; Tan, Chorh Chuan; Cook, Alex R.; Yap, Jason Chin-Huat; Hsu, Li Yang
Date: 2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030623
License: cc-by
Abstract: Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.
Text: Since mid-December 2019 and as of early February 2020, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) originating from Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) has infected over 25,000 laboratory-confirmed cases across 28 countries with about 500 deaths (a case-fatality rate of about 2%). More than 90% of the cases and deaths were in China [1] . Based on the initial reported surge of cases in Wuhan, the majority were males with a median age of 55 years and linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market [2] . Most of the reported cases had similar symptoms at the onset of illness such as fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue. Most cases developed pneumonia and some severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome [3] .
The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), a betacoronavirus, forms a clade within the subgenus sarbecovirus of the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily [4] . The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are also betacoronaviruses that are zoonotic in origin and have been linked to potential fatal illness during the outbreaks in 2003 and 2012, respectively [5, 6] . Based on current evidence, pathogenicity for 2019-nCoV is about 3%, which is significantly lower than SARS-CoV (10%) and MERS-CoV (40%) [7] . However, 2019-nCoV has potentially higher transmissibility (R0: 1.4-5.5) than both SARS-CoV (R0: [2] [3] [4] [5] and MERS-CoV (R0: <1) [7] .
With the possible expansion of 2019-nCoV globally [8] and the declaration of the 2019-nCoV outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, there is an urgent need for rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics to detect, prevent and contain 2019-nCoV promptly. There is however currently a lack of understanding of what is available in the early phase of 2019-nCoV outbreak. The systematic review describes and assesses the potential rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics for 2019-nCoV, based in part on the developments for MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies examining the diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
There were two independent reviewers each focusing on SARS, MERS, and 2019-nCoV, respectively. A third independent reviewer was engaged to resolve any conflicting article of interest. We used the key words "SARS", "coronavirus", "MERS", "2019 Novel coronavirus", "Wuhan virus" to identify the diseases in the search strategy. The systematic searches for diagnosis, therapeutic drugs and vaccines were carried out independently and the key words "drug", "therapy", "vaccine", "diagnosis", "point of care testing" and "rapid diagnostic test" were used in conjunction with the disease key words for the respective searches.
Examples of search strings can be found in Table S1 . We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and validation trials (for diagnostics test) published in English, that measured (a) the sensitivity and/or specificity of a rapid diagnostic test or a point-of-care testing kit, (b) the impact of drug therapy or (c) vaccine efficacy against either of these diseases with no date restriction applied. For the 2019-nCoV, we searched for all in vitro, animal, or human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020, on the same outcomes of interest. In addition, we reviewed the references of retrieved articles in order to identify additional studies or reports not retrieved by the initial searches. Studies that examined the mechanisms of diagnostic tests, drug therapy or vaccine efficacy against SARS, MERS and 2019-nCoV were excluded. A Google search for 2019-nCoV diagnostics (as of 6 February 2020; Table S2 ) yielded five webpage links from government and international bodies with official information and guidelines (WHO, Europe CDC, US CDC, US FDA), three webpage links on diagnostic protocols and scientific commentaries, and five webpage links on market news and press releases. Six protocols for diagnostics using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from six countries were published on WHO's website [9] . Google search for 2019-nCoV vaccines yielded 19 relevant articles.
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, real time RT-PCR remains the primary means for diagnosing the new virus strain among the many diagnostic platforms available ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ; Table S3 ). Among the 16 diagnostics studies selected, one study discussed the use of RT-PCR in diagnosing patients with 2019-nCoV [11] ( Table 1 ). The period and type of specimen collected for RT-PCR play an important role in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV. It was found that the respiratory specimens were positive for the virus while serum was negative in the early period. It has also suggested that in the early days of illness, patients have high levels of virus despite the mild symptoms.
Apart from the commonly used RT-PCR in diagnosing MERS-CoV, four studies identified various diagnostic methods such as reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), RT-insulated isothermal PCR (RT-iiPCR) and a one-step rRT-PCR assay based on specific TaqMan probes. RT-LAMP has similar sensitivity as real time RT-PCR. It is also highly specific and is used to detect MERS-CoV. It is comparable to the usual diagnostic tests and is rapid, simple and convenient. Likewise, RT-iiPCR and a one-step rRT-PCR assay have also shown similar sensitivity and high specificity for MER-CoV. Lastly, one study focused on the validation of the six commercial real RT-PCR kits, with high accuracy. Although real time RT-PCR is a primary method for diagnosing MERS-CoV, high levels of PCR inhibition may hinder PCR sensitivity (Table 1) .
There are eleven studies that focus on SARS-CoV diagnostic testing (Table 1) . These papers described diagnostic methods to detect the virus with the majority of them using molecular testing for diagnosis. Comparison between the molecular test (i.e RT-PCR) and serological test (i.e., ELISA) showed that the molecular test has better sensitivity and specificity. Hence, enhancements to the current molecular test were conducted to improve the diagnosis. Studies looked at using nested PCR to include a pre-amplification step or incorporating N gene as an additional sensitive molecular marker to improve on the sensitivity (Table 1 ).
In addition, there are seven potential rapid diagnostic kits (as of 24 January 2020; Table 2 ) available on the market for 2019-nCoV. Six of these are only for research purposes. Only one kit from Beijing Genome Institute (BGI) is approved for use in the clinical setting for rapid diagnosis. Most of the kits are for RT-PCR. There were two kits (BGI, China and Veredus, Singapore) with the capability to detect multiple pathogens using sequencing and microarray technologies, respectively. The limit of detection of the enhanced realtime PCR method was 10 2 -fold higher than the standard real-time PCR assay and 10 7fold higher than conventional PCR methods In the clinical aspect, the enhanced realtime PCR method was able to detect 6 cases of SARS-CoV positive samples that were not confirmed by any other assay [25] • The real time PCR has a threshold sensitivity of 10 genome equivalents per reaction and it has a good reproducibility with the inter-assay coefficients of variation of 1.73 to 2.72%. • 13 specimens from 6 patients were positive with viral load range from 362 to 36,240,000 genome equivalents/mL. The real-time RT-PCR reaction was more sensitive than the nested PCR reaction, as the detection limit for the nested PCR reaction was about 10 3 genome equivalents in the standard cDNA control. [34] Real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR); RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp); open reading frame 1a (ORF1a); Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP); enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); immunofluorescent assay (IFA); immunochromatographic test (ICT); nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA).
With the emergence of 2019-nCoV, there are about 15 potential vaccine candidates in the pipeline globally (Table 3 ), in which a wide range of technology (such as messenger RNA, DNA-based, nanoparticle, synthetic and modified virus-like particle) was applied. It will likely take about a year for most candidates to start phase 1 clinical trials except for those funded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). However, the kit developed by the BGI have passed emergency approval procedure of the National Medical Products Administration, and are currently used in clinical and surveillance centers of China [40] .
Of the total of 570 unique studies on 2019-nCoV, SARS CoV or MERS-CoV vaccines screened, only four were eventually included in the review. Most studies on SARS and MERS vaccines were excluded as they were performed in cell or animal models ( Figure 1 ). The four studies included in this review were Phase I clinical trials on SARS or MERS vaccines (Table 4 ) [44] [45] [46] [47] . There were no studies of any population type (cell, animal, human) on the 2019-nCoV at the point of screening. The published clinical trials were mostly done in United States except for one on the SARS vaccine done in China [44] . All vaccine candidates for SARS and MERS were reported to be safe, well-tolerated and able to trigger the relevant and appropriate immune responses in the participants. In addition, we highlight six ongoing Phase I clinical trials identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov register ( [48, 49] ); Table S4 ) [50] [51] [52] . These trials are all testing the safety and immunogenicity of their respective MERS-CoV vaccine candidates but were excluded as there are no results published yet. The trials are projected to complete in December 2020 (two studies in Russia [50, 51] ) and December 2021 (in Germany [52] ).
Existing literature search did not return any results on completed 2019-nCoV trials at the time of writing. Among 23 trials found from the systematic review (Table 5) , there are nine clinical trials registered under the clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) for 2019-nCoV therapeutics [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . Of which five studies on hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir plus ritonavir and arbidol, mesenchymal stem cells, traditional Chinese medicine and glucocorticoid therapy usage have commenced recruitment. The remaining four studies encompass investigation of antivirals, interferon atomization, darunavir and cobicistat, arbidol, and remdesivir usage for 2019-nCoV patients (Table 5) . Seroconversion measured by S1-ELISA occurred in 86% and 94% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively, and was maintained in 79% participants up to study end at week 60. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 50% participants at one or more time points during the study, but only 3% maintained neutralisation activity to end of study. T-cell responses were detected in 71% and 76% participants after 2 and 3 doses, respectively. There were no differences in immune responses between dose groups after 6 weeks and vaccine-induced humoral and cellular responses were respectively detected in 77% and 64% participants at week 60.
[47] Molecules developed by the university scientists inhibit two coronavirus enzymes and prevent its replication. The discovered drug targets are said to be more than 95% similar to enzyme targets found on the SARS virus. Researchers note that identified drugs may not be available to address the ongoing outbreak but they hope to make it accessible for future outbreaks.
[85] Besides the six completed randomized controlled trials (RCT) selected from the systematic review (Table 6) , there is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at SARS therapeutics [92] . The studies found from ClinicalTrials.gov have not been updated since 2013. While many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin only, there has yet to be well-designed clinical trials investigating their usage. Three completed randomized controlled trials were conducted during the SARS epidemic-3 in China, 1 in Taiwan and 2 in Hong Kong [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] . The studies respectively investigated antibiotic usage involving 190 participants, combination of western and Chinese treatment vs. Chinese treatment in 123 participants, integrative Chinese and Western treatment in 49 patients, usage of a specific Chinese medicine in four participants and early use of corticosteroid in 16 participants. Another notable study was an open non-randomized study investigating ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir usage in 152 participants [98] . One randomized controlled trial investigating integrative western and Chinese treatment during the SARS epidemic was excluded as it was a Chinese article [94] .
There is only one ongoing randomized controlled trial targeted at MERS therapeutics [99] . It investigates the usage of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Interferon Beta 1B. Likewise, many prospective and retrospective cohort studies conducted during the epidemic centered on usage of ribavirin with lopinavir/ritonavir/ribavirin, interferon, and convalescent plasma usage. To date, only one trial has been completed. One phase 1 clinical trial investigating the safety and tolerability of a fully human polyclonal IgG immunoglobulin (SAB-301) was found in available literature [46] . The trial conducted in the United States in 2017 demonstrated SAB-301 to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. Another trial on MERS therapeutics was found on ClinicalTrials.gov-a phase 2/3 trial in the United States evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity on coadministered MERS-CoV antibodies REGN3048 & REGN3051 [100].
Rapid diagnostics plays an important role in disease and outbreak management. The fast and accurate diagnosis of a specific viral infection enables prompt and accurate public health surveillance, prevention and control measures. Local transmission and clusters can be prevented or delayed by isolation of laboratory-confirmed cases and their close contacts quarantined and monitored at home. Rapid diagnostic also facilitates other specific public health interventions such as closure of high-risk facilities and areas associated with the confirmed cases for prompt infection control and environmental decontamination [11, 101] .
Laboratory diagnosis can be performed by: (a) detecting the genetic material of the virus, (b) detecting the antibodies that neutralize the viral particles of interest, (c) detecting the viral epitopes of interest with antibodies (serological testing), or (d) culture and isolation of viable virus particles.
The key limitations of genetic material detection are the lack of knowledge of the presence of viable virus, the potential cross-reactivity with non-specific genetic regions and the short timeframe for accurate detection during the acute infection phase. The key limitations of serological testing is the need to collect paired serum samples (in the acute and convalescent phases) from cases under investigation for confirmation to eliminate potential cross-reactivity from non-specific antibodies from past exposure and/or infection by other coronaviruses. The limitation of virus culture and isolation is the long duration and the highly specialized skills required of the technicians to process the samples. All patients recovered.
Significantly shorted time from the disease onset to the symptom improvement in treatment (5.10 ± 2.83 days) compared to control group (7.62 ± 2.27 days) (p < 0.05) No significant difference in blood routine improvement, pulmonary chest shadow in chest film improvement and corticosteroid usgae between the 2 groups. However, particularly in the respect of improving clinical symptoms, elevating quality of life, promoting immune function recovery, promoting absorption of pulmonary inflammation, reducing the dosage of cortisteroid and shortening the therapeutic course, treatment with integrative chinese and western medicine treatment had obvious superiority compared with using control treatment alone. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants. [46] Where the biological samples are taken from also play a role in the sensitivity of these tests. For SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, specimens collected from the lower respiratory tract such as sputum and tracheal aspirates have higher and more prolonged levels of viral RNA because of the tropism of the virus. MERS-CoV viral loads are also higher for severe cases and have longer viral shedding compared to mild cases. Although upper respiratory tract specimens such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs can be used, they have potentially lower viral loads and may have higher risk of false-negatives among the mild MERS and SARS cases [102, 103] , and likely among the 2019-nCoV cases.
The existing practices in detecting genetic material of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV include (a) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), (b) real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR), (c) reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and (d) real-time RT-LAMP [104] . Nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are usually preferred as in the case of MERS-CoV diagnosis as it has the highest sensitivity at the earliest time point in the acute phase of infection [102] . Chinese health authorities have recently posted the full genome of 2019-nCoV in the GenBank and in GISAID portal to facilitate in the detection of the virus [11] . Several laboratory assays have been developed to detect the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, as highlighted in WHO's interim guidance on nCoV laboratory testing of suspected cases. These include protocols from other countries such as Thailand, Japan and China [105] .
The first validated diagnostic test was designed in Germany. Corman et al. had initially designed a candidate diagnostic RT-PCR assay based on the SARS or SARS-related coronavirus as it was suggested that circulating virus was SARS-like. Upon the release of the sequence, assays were selected based on the match against 2019-nCoV upon inspection of the sequence alignment. Two assays were used for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene and E gene where E gene assay acts as the first-line screening tool and RdRp gene assay as the confirmatory testing. All assays were highly sensitive and specific in that they did not cross-react with other coronavirus and also human clinical samples that contained respiratory viruses [11] .
The Hong Kong University used two monoplex assays which were reactive with coronaviruses under the subgenus Sarbecovirus (consisting of 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-like coronavirus). Viral RNA extracted from SARS-CoV can be used as the positive control for the suggested protocol assuming that SARS has been eradicated. It is proposed that the N gene RT-PCR can be used as a screening assay while the Orf1b assay acts as a confirmatory test. However, this protocol has only been evaluated with a panel of controls with the only positive control SARS-CoV RNA. Synthetic oligonucleotide positive control or 2019-nCoV have yet to be tested [106] .
The US CDC shared the protocol on the real time RT-PCR assay for the detection of the 2019-nCoV with the primers and probes designed for the universal detection of SARS-like coronavirus and the specific detection of 2019-nCoV. However, the protocol has not been validated on other platforms or chemistries apart from the protocol described. There are some limitations for the assay. Analysts engaged have to be trained and familiar with the testing procedure and result interpretation. False negative results may occur due to insufficient organisms in the specimen resulting from improper collection, transportation or handling. Also, RNA viruses may show substantial genetic variability. This could result in mismatch between the primer and probes with the target sequence which can diminish the assay performance or result in false negative results [107] . Point-of-care test kit can potentially minimize these limitations, which should be highly prioritized for research and development in the next few months.
Serological testing such as ELISA, IIFT and neutralization tests are effective in determining the extent of infection, including estimating asymptomatic and attack rate. Compared to the detection of viral genome through molecular methods, serological testing detects antibodies and antigens. There would be a lag period as antibodies specifically targeting the virus would normally appear between 14 and 28 days after the illness onset [108] . Furthermore, studies suggest that low antibody titers in the second week or delayed antibody production could be associated with mortality with a high viral load. Hence, serological diagnoses are likely used when nucleic amplification tests (NAAT) are not available or accessible [102] .
Vaccines can prevent and protect against infection and disease occurrence when exposed to the specific pathogen of interest, especially in vulnerable populations who are more prone to severe outcomes. In the context of the current 2019-nCoV outbreak, vaccines will help control and reduce disease transmission by creating herd immunity in addition to protecting healthy individuals from infection. This decreases the effective R0 value of the disease. Nonetheless, there are social, clinical and economic hurdles for vaccine and vaccination programmes, including (a) the willingness of the public to undergo vaccination with a novel vaccine, (b) the side effects and severe adverse reactions of vaccination, (c) the potential difference and/or low efficacy of the vaccine in populations different from the clinical trials' populations and (d) the accessibility of the vaccines to a given population (including the cost and availability of the vaccine).
Vaccines against the 2019-nCoV are currently in development and none are in testing (at the time of writing). On 23 January 2020, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced that they will fund vaccine development programmes with Inovio, The University of Queensland and Moderna, Inc respectively, with the aim to test the experimental vaccines clinically in 16 weeks (By June 2020). The vaccine candidates will be developed by the DNA, recombinant and mRNA vaccine platforms from these organizations [109] .
Based on the most recent MERS-CoV outbreak, there are already a number of vaccine candidates being developed but most are still in the preclinical testing stage. The vaccines in development include viral vector-based vaccine, DNA vaccine, subunit vaccine, virus-like particles (VLPs)-based vaccine, inactivated whole-virus (IWV) vaccine and live attenuated vaccine. The latest findings for these vaccines arebased on the review by Yong et al. (2019) in August 2019 [110] . As of the date of reporting, there is only one published clinical study on the MERS-CoV vaccine by GeneOne Life Science & Inovio Pharmaceuticals [47] . There was one SARS vaccine trial conducted by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Phase I clinical trials reported positive results, but only one has announced plans to proceed to Phase 2 trial [111] .
Due to the close genetic relatedness of SARS-CoV (79%) with 2019-nCoV [112] , there may be potential cross-protective effect of using a safe SARS-CoV vaccine while awaiting the 2019-nCoV vaccine. However, this would require small scale phase-by-phase implementation and close monitoring of vaccinees before any large scale implementation.
Apart from the timely diagnosis of cases, the achievement of favorable clinical outcomes depends on the timely treatment administered. ACE2 has been reported to be the same cell entry receptor used by 2019-nCoV to infect humans as SARS-CoV [113] . Hence, clinical similarity between the two viruses is expected, particularly in severe cases. In addition, most of those who have died from MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV were advance in age and had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that compromised their immune systems [114] . Coronaviruses have error-prone RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRP), which result in frequent mutations and recombination events. This results in quasispecies diversity that is closely associated with adaptive evolution and the capacity to enhance viral-cell entry to cause disease over time in a specific population at-risk [115] . Since ACE2 is abundantly present in humans in the epithelia of the lung and small intestine, coronaviruses are likely to infect the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tract and this may influence the type of therapeutics against 2019-nCoV, similarly to SAR-CoV.
However, in the years following two major coronavirus outbreaks SARS-CoV in 2003 and MERS-CoV in 2012, there remains no consensus on the optimal therapy for either disease [116, 117] . Well-designed clinical trials that provide the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic measures are scarce. No coronavirus protease inhibitors have successfully completed a preclinical development program despite large efforts exploring SARS-CoV inhibitors. The bulk of potential therapeutic strategies remain in the experimental phase, with only a handful crossing the in vitro hurdle. Stronger efforts are required in the research for treatment options for major coronaviruses given their pandemic potential. Effective treatment options are essential to maximize the restoration of affected populations to good health following infections. Clinical trials have commenced in China to identify effective treatments for 2019-nCoV based on the treatment evidence from SARS and MERS. There is currently no effective specific antiviral with high-level evidence; any specific antiviral therapy should be provided in the context of a clinical study/trial. Few treatments have shown real curative action against SARS and MERS and the literature generally describes isolated cases or small case series.
Many interferons from the three classes have been tested for their antiviral activities against SARS-CoV both in vitro and in animal models. Interferon β has consistently been shown to be the most active, followed by interferon α. The use of corticosteroids with interferon alfacon-1 (synthetic interferon α) appeared to have improved oxygenation and faster resolution of chest radiograph abnormalities in observational studies with untreated controls. Interferon has been used in multiple observational studies to treat SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV patients [116, 117] . Interferons, with or without ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are most likely to be beneficial and are being trialed in China for 2019-nCoV. This drug treatment appears to be the most advanced. Timing of treatment is likely an important factor in effectiveness. A combination of ribavirin and lopinavir/ritonavir was used as a post-exposure prophylaxis in health care workers and may have reduced the risk of infection. Ribavirin alone is unlikely to have substantial antiviral activities at clinically used dosages. Hence, ribavirin with or without corticosteroids and with lopinavir and ritonavir are among the combinations employed. This was the most common agent reported in the available literature. Its efficacy has been assessed in observational studies, retrospective case series, retrospective cohort study, a prospective observational study, a prospective cohort study and randomized controlled trial ranging from seven to 229 participants [117] . Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) was the earliest protease inhibitor combination introduced for the treatment of SARS-CoV. Its efficacy was documented in several studies, causing notably lower incidence of adverse outcomes than with ribavirin alone. Combined usage with ribavirin was also associated with lower incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, nosocomial infection and death, amongst other favorable outcomes. Recent in vitro studies have shown another HIV protease inhibitor, nelfinavir, to have antiviral capacity against SARS-CoV, although it has yet to show favorable outcomes in animal studies [118] . Remdesivir (Gilead Sciences, GS-5734) nucleoside analogue in vitro and in vivo data support GS-5734 development as a potential pan-coronavirus antiviral based on results against several coronaviruses (CoVs), including highly pathogenic CoVs and potentially emergent BatCoVs. The use of remdesivir may be a good candidate as an investigational treatment.
Improved mortality following receipt of convalescent plasma in various doses was consistently reported in several observational studies involving cases with severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) of viral etiology. A significant reduction in the pooled odds of mortality following treatment of 0.25 compared to placebo or no therapy was observed [119] . Studies were however at moderate to high risk of bias given their small sample sizes, allocation of treatment based on the physician's discretion, and the availability of plasma. Factors like concomitant treatment may have also confounded the results. Associations between convalescent plasma and hospital length of stay, viral antibody levels, and viral load respectively were similarly inconsistent across available literature. Convalescent plasma, while promising, is likely not yet feasible, given the limited pool of potential donors and issues of scalability. Monoclonal antibody treatment is progressing. SARS-CoV enters host cells through the binding of their spike (S) protein to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD209L [118] . Human monoclonal antibodies to the S protein have been shown to significantly reduce the severity of lung pathology in non-human primates following MERS-CoV infection [120] . Such neutralizing antibodies can be elicited by active or passive immunization using vaccines or convalescent plasma respectively. While such neutralizing antibodies can theoretically be harvested from individuals immunized with vaccines, there is uncertainty over the achievement of therapeutic levels of antibodies.
Other therapeutic agents have also been reported. A known antimalarial agent, chloroquine, elicits antiviral effects against multiple viruses including HIV type 1, hepatitis B and HCoV-229E. Chloroquine is also immunomodulatory, capable of suppressing the production and release of factors which mediate the inflammatory complications of viral diseases (tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6) [121] . It is postulated that chloroquine works by altering ACE2 glycosylation and endosomal pH. Its anti-inflammatory properties may be beneficial for the treatment of SARS. Niclosamide as a known drug used in antihelminthic treatment. The efficacy of niclosamide as an inhibitor of virus replication was proven in several assays. In both immunoblot analysis and immunofluorescence assays, niclosamide treatment was observed to completely inhibit viral antigen synthesis. Reduction of virus yield in infected cells was dose dependent. Niclosamide likely does not interfere in the early stages of virus attachment and entry into cells, nor does it function as a protease inhibitor. Mechanisms of niclosamide activity warrant further investigation [122] . Glycyrrhizin also reportedly inhibits virus adsorption and penetration in the early steps of virus replication. Glycyrrhizin was a significantly potent inhibitor with a low selectivity index when tested against several pathogenic flaviviruses. While preliminary results suggest production of nitrous oxide (which inhibits virus replication) through induction of nitrous oxide synthase, the mechanism of Glycyrrhizin against SARS-CoV remains unclear. The compound also has relatively lower toxicity compared to protease inhibitors like ribavirin [123] . Inhibitory activity was also detected in baicalin [124] , extracted from another herb used in the treatment of SARS in China and Hong Kong. Findings on these compounds are limited to in vitro studies [121] [122] [123] [124] .
Due to the rapidly evolving situation of the 2019-nCoV, there will be potential limitations to the systematic review. The systematic review is likely to have publication bias as some developments have yet to be reported while for other developments there is no intention to report publicly (or in scientific platforms) due to confidentiality concerns. However, this may be limited to only a few developments for review as publicity does help in branding to some extent for the company and/or the funder. Furthermore, due to the rapid need to share the status of these developments, there may be reporting bias in some details provided by authors of the scientific articles or commentary articles in traditional media. Lastly, while it is not viable for any form of quality assessment and metaanalysis of the selected articles due to the limited data provided and the heterogeneous style of reporting by different articles, this paper has provided a comprehensive overview of the potential developments of these pharmaceutical interventions during the early phase of the outbreak. This systematic review would be useful for cross-check when the quality assessment and meta-analysis of these developments are performed as a follow-up study.
Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are key pharmaceutical interventions to limit transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Many potential developments on these pharmaceutical interventions for 2019-nCoV are ongoing in the containment phase of this outbreak, potentially due to better pandemic preparedness than before. However, lessons from MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV have shown that the journeys for these developments can still be challenging moving ahead.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Table S1 : Example of full search strategy in Pubmed, Table S2 : Google Search: 2019-nCoV diagnostics, Table S3 : Summary of diagnostic assays developed for 2019-nCoV, Table S4 | What did the trial on SAB-301 demonstrate? | 3,691 | to be safe and well-tolerated at single doses. | 16,296 |
1,664 | Port d’Entrée for Respiratory Infections – Does the Influenza A Virus Pave the Way for Bacteria?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5742597/
SHA: ee0050c6fb81a4067d134010d0c80d21edb5df0b
Authors: Siemens, Nikolai; Oehmcke-Hecht, Sonja; Mettenleiter, Thomas C.; Kreikemeyer, Bernd; Valentin-Weigand, Peter; Hammerschmidt, Sven
Date: 2017-12-21
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02602
License: cc-by
Abstract: Bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract are life-threatening and present a global burden to the global community. Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus pyogenes are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract. Imbalances through acquisition of seasonal viruses, e.g., Influenza A virus, can lead to bacterial dissemination to the lower respiratory tract, which in turn can result in severe pneumonia. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract and focus on potential experimental models suitable for mimicking this disease. Transmission of IAV and pneumonia is mainly modeled by mouse infection. Few studies utilizing ferrets, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and non-human primates are also available. The knowledge gained from these studies led to important discoveries and advances in understanding these infectious diseases. Nevertheless, mouse and other infection models have limitations, especially in translation of the discoveries to humans. Here, we suggest the use of human engineered lung tissue, human ex vivo lung tissue, and porcine models to study respiratory co-infections, which might contribute to a greater translation of the results to humans and improve both, animal and human health.
Text: In recent years the human microbiota is more and more recognized to play a crucial role in pathogenesis of many diseases (Weinstock, 2012) . The upper respiratory tract is a natural niche for potentially pathogenic bacteria embedded in commensal communities forming the nasopharyngeal microbiome. In particular, the microbial communities of the nasopharynx (Hilty et al., 2012) are associated with respiratory diseases, i.e., severe pneumonia, which are responsible for substantial mortality and morbidity in humans worldwide (Prina et al., 2016) . The composition of the nasopharyngeal microbiome is highly dynamic (Biesbroek et al., 2014a,b,c) and many factors, including environmental and host factors, can affect microbial colonization (Koppen et al., 2015) . Recent studies on neonates have shown that the respiratory microbiota develops from initially maternally transmitted mixed flora with predominance of Streptococcus viridans species to niche-specific bacterial profiles containing mostly Staphylococcus aureus at around 1 week of age (Bosch et al., 2016a) . Between 2 weeks and 6 months after birth, the staphylococcal predominance declines and colonization with Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococci) as a predominant pathobiont emerges (Miller et al., 2011; Bosch et al., 2016a,b) . The dynamic microbiome composition is guaranteed through the interplay between bacterial species, other microbes, and changing environmental conditions, as well as host-bacteria interactions (Blaser and Falkow, 2009 ). Most of the time, the microbiome and its interplay with the human host are believed to be beneficial for both (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Murphy et al., 2009 ). However, imbalances in microbial composition can lead to acquisition of new viral or bacterial species and invasion of potential pathogens, which in turn can become detrimental, especially in elderly people and children with an exhausted or immature immune system (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Blaser and Falkow, 2009; Murphy et al., 2009) .
One particular example showing imbalances introduced by single dosage of antibiotics was demonstrated by Ichinohe and colleagues (Ichinohe et al., 2011) . While commensal respiratory microbiota facilitated immune-support against Influenza A virus infection (IAV), oral treatment with antibiotics resulted not only in a shift of bacterial composition, but also in impaired CD4 T-, CD8 T-, and B-cell immunity following infection with IAV in mice (Ichinohe et al., 2011) . Analyses of human oropharyngeal microbiomes during the 2009 H1N1 IAV pandemic revealed that at the phylum level, the abundance of Fermicutes and Proteobacteria was augmented in pneumonia patients as compared to healthy controls (Leung et al., 2013) . However, another study published in the same year contradicted these results (Chaban et al., 2013) . Chaban and colleagues analyzed microbiomes of 65 patients from H1N1 IAV outbreak in 2009. Although the phylogenetic composition of pneumonia patients was dominated by Fermicutes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria, no significant differences between the patients and healthy controls or any other variables tested, including age and gender, were observed (Chaban et al., 2013) .
In this review we discuss secondary bacterial infections of the respiratory tract after primary infection by IAV with a focus on mechanisms by which these interactions are potentially mediated, and we will provide insight into the host contribution and immunological consequences. We further focus on potential animal models suitable for mimicking asymptomatic bacterial colonization and disease progression and thus, enabling to study adaptation strategies, viral-bacterial interactions, and immune responses in these highly lethal co-infections.
Influenza A viruses belong to the family of Orthomyxoviridae and based on the antigenicity of their haemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) they are classified into 16 classical HA and 9 classical NA subtypes (Neumann et al., 2009) . The 8-segmented genomes of influenza A viruses are characterized by a significant plasticity. Due to point mutations and re-assortment events new variants or strains with epidemic or pandemic potential emerge (Neumann et al., 2009 ). In addition, influenza can be transmitted between animals, including swine, birds, horses, and humans, making it a zoonotic disease (van der Meer et al., 2010) . Seasonal influenza usually resolves without consequences in healthy individuals. However, it is estimated that seasonal influenza effects 5-10% of the world's population resulting in about 250,000 to 500,000 deaths annually (Tjon-Kon-Fat et al., 2016) . At greater risk to develop secondary bacterial pneumonia are individuals with comorbidities, elderly people (age > 65), pregnant women, and children under the age of one (Rothberg et al., 2008) .
For a long time it was considered that the H1N1 strain, an avian-like H1N1 virus, directly caused most of the fatalities during the 1918-1919 pandemic (Spanish Flu), often from a hemorrhagic pneumonitis rapidly progressing to acute respiratory distress syndrome and death (Osterholm, 2005; Gerberding, 2006; Oxford et al., 2006) . The pandemic killed around 50 million people worldwide and remains unique in its severity compared to other big outbreaks. However, many of the findings have been reinterpreted in recent years (Brundage and Shanks, 2007; Chien et al., 2009) . It is estimated that around 95% of all severe cases and deaths were attributed to secondary infections with bacterial pathogens, most predominantly by Streptococcus pneumoniae (Morens et al., 2008) . Individual studies limited to certain regions identified also other pathogens commonly colonizing the respiratory tract, including Staphylococcus aureus, group A streptococcus (GAS) and Haemophilus influenzae (Brundage and Shanks, 2008) . During the next two pandemics (H2N2 Asian Flu 1957 and H3N2 Hong Kong Flu 1968 −1969 bacterial co-infections were less likely the cause of death compared to the Spanish Flu (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957; Trotter et al., 1959) . Still, pneumonia accounted for about 44% of deaths during the Asian Flu (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957) . Most fatalities resulting from pneumonia occurred in individuals with chronic conditions, i.e., chronic lung diseases, rheumatic carditis, and hypertension (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957) . In 1957-1958, S. aureus was predominantly isolated from fatal pneumonia cases (Hers et al., 1957 (Hers et al., , 1958 Robertson et al., 1958; Martin et al., 1959) , whereas S. pneumoniae returned as predominant cause of severe pneumonia during the Hong Kong Flu (Sharrar, 1969; Bisno et al., 1971; Burk et al., 1971; Schwarzmann et al., 1971) . Forty years later in 2009, a novel H1N1 virus of swine origin emerged and caused again a pandemic (Dawood et al., 2009 (Dawood et al., , 2012 . In contrast to Asian and Hong Kong Flu, mortality rates were rather low, but most deaths occurred in healthy young individuals with no underlying conditions (Reichert et al., 2010; Monsalvo et al., 2011; Dawood et al., 2012) . About 25-50% of severe or fatal cases were linked to complications due to bacterial pneumonia (Dominguez-Cherit et al., 2009; Estenssoro et al., 2010; Mauad et al., 2010; Shieh et al., 2010 ). Although regional variations occurred, pneumococci and S. aureus were the most frequently isolated bacterial species (Mauad et al., 2010; Shieh et al., 2010; Rice et al., 2012) . Group A streptococcus was absent in many local pneumonia outbreaks associated with viruses, but was predominant in others (Brundage and Shanks, 2008; Ampofo et al., 2010) . When it does appear, it is typically third in incidence (Chaussee et al., 2011) . Overall, data on pandemic outbreaks suggest that disease severity and mortality can be linked to secondary bacterial pathogens with variations depending on regions and state of immunity of the population (Brundage and Shanks, 2008; Shanks et al., 2010 Shanks et al., , 2011 McCullers, 2013) .
There is increasing evidence that the nasopharyngeal microbiota plays an important role in the pathogenesis of acute viral respiratory infections (Teo et al., 2015; de Steenhuijsen Piters et al., 2016; Rosas-Salazar et al., 2016a,b) . Respiratory viruses, including IAV, have been shown to alter bacterial adherence and colonization leading to an increased risk of secondary bacterial infections (Tregoning and Schwarze, 2010) . Pneumococci, S. aureus, and GAS are important human Gram-positive pathogens. All of them are frequent colonizers of the human nasopharynx and they share many features including pathogenic mechanisms and clinical aspects (Figure 1) . However, they also have unique properties.
Staphylococcus aureus colonizes persistently about 30% of the human population and typical niches include nares, axillae, and skin (Peacock et al., 2001; von Eiff et al., 2001; van Belkum et al., 2009) . They cause a variety of clinical manifestations ranging from mild skin infections to fatal necrotizing pneumonia. In the last decades, the pathogen became resistant to an increasing number of antibiotics and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is now a major cause of hospital acquired infections (Hartman and Tomasz, 1984; Ubukata et al., 1989; Zetola et al., 2005) . Also the rise of community-acquired S. aureus strains is of special concern, because certain clones are associated with very severe infections (Rasigade et al., 2010) . Recent prospective studies demonstrated an increase in proportion of communityacquired methicillin-sensitive S. aureus in severe pneumonia cases (McCaskill et al., 2007; Sicot et al., 2013) .
The pneumococcus is a typical colonizer of the human nasopharynx. About 20-50% of healthy children and 8-30% of healthy adults are asymptomatically colonized (McCullers, 2006) . Pneumococci cause diseases ranging from mild, i.e., sinusitis, conjunctivitis, and otitis media, to more severe and potentially life-threatening infections, including communityacquired pneumonia, bacteraemia, and meningitis (Bogaert et al., 2004; Valles et al., 2016) . This bacterium is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates in risk groups such as immunocompromised individuals, children, and elderly (Black et al., 2010; Valles et al., 2016) .
Group A streptococci colonize the mouth and upper respiratory tract in about 2-5% of world's population (Okumura and Nizet, 2014) . The most common, non-invasive and mild infections caused by GAS are tonsillitis and pharyngitis with estimated 600 million cases per year (Carapetis et al., 2005) .
Listed as number nine in the list of global killers with around 500,000 deaths annually (Carapetis et al., 2005) , it is obvious that this pathogen can cause severe invasive infections, including pneumonia, sepsis, streptococcal toxic shock syndrome, and necrotizing skin infections (Cunningham, 2000; Carapetis et al., 2005) .
Although all three pathogens are able to cause highly lethal diseases, the most fatal remains the pneumococcus, estimated to cause ca. 10% of all deaths in children below 5 years of age (O'Brien et al., 2009) , in the elderly (Marrie et al., 2017) , and in immuno-compromised individuals (Baxter et al., 2016) .
Influenza A virus binds via HA to either α2,3or α2,6-linked sialic acid at the surface of epithelial cells of the upper and lower respiratory tract (Webster et al., 1992) . Seasonal strains show usually affinity to α2,6-linked sialic acids that are expressed in the human trachea, whereas avian-like viruses preferentially bind to α2,3-linked sialic acids of alveolar type II cells (Shinya et al., 2006; van Riel et al., 2007 van Riel et al., , 2010 . The release of viral genomic RNA into the cytosol activates different immune response pathways. Binding of viral RNA to retinoic acid inducible gene 1 induces the expression of type I and III interferons and activates transcription factor NF-κB, which in turn activates the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines (Durbin et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) . In addition, inflammasome activation leads to the release of IL-1β and IL-18 (Pothlichet et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) . All these responses are supposed to promote viral clearance. However, the presence of viral proteins during infection induces also direct activation of the intrinsic or indirectly the activation of the extrinsic apoptotic pathway via production of inflammatory cytokines, resulting in apoptosis or even necrosis of the epithelium (Korteweg and Gu, 2008) . Furthermore, aberrant coagulation induced by virus infection causes a hyper-inflammatory response (Yang and Tang, 2016) . All these events contribute to lung tissue injury (Imai et al., 2008; Davidson et al., 2014) . The epithelial damage due to viral replication provides a beneficial environment for initial bacterial attachment (Plotkowski et al., 1993) . On the other hand, already colonized bacteria might enhance influenza virus virulence either by directly secreting proteases that cleave and activate HA (Figure 2 ) (Bottcher-Friebertshauser et al., 2013) or, indirectly, by activating host proteases such as plasminogen, which increases replication rates and infectivity of the virus (Scheiblauer et al., 1992; Tse and Whittaker, 2015) .
Potentially pathogenic bacteria, including the three species mentioned above, express an arsenal of virulence factors responsible for attachment to human host structures. Microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules FIGURE 1 | Potential models to study bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract. S. pneumoniae, S. aureus, S. pyogenes, and S. suis are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract. Seasonal IAV infection can lead to an increased risk of secondary bacterial infections, i.e., pneumonia. Several experimental models can be used for studying these severe infections. Patient samples, including ex vivo lung tissue are materials of choice, but they are rare due to ethical considerations. Tissue engineering approaches closely resemble the 3D architecture, cellular composition, and matrix complexity of the respective organ and were proven as useful tool to study infectious diseases. In vivo bacterial and viral co-infections are mainly performed in mice, which does not necessarily resemble the human physiology and immune system. Thus, we suggest using the porcine model, which nearly resembles over 80% of the human immune system.
(MSCRAMMs), such as PspC, PspA, and PsaA in pneumococci (Hammerschmidt, 2006) , SPA, FnbA, ClfA, and ClfB in S. aureus (Bartlett and Hulten, 2010; Otto, 2010) , and M-protein, PrtF1, and PrtF2 in GAS (Cunningham, 2000) , respectively, and socalled moon-lightning proteins expressed by all three species, e.g., GAPDH, enolase or PGK (Fulde et al., 2013) , enable the bacteria to attach to damaged cells or molecules of the extracellular matrix, including fibronectin, fibrin, fibrinogen, and collagens, or fibrinolytic proteins like plasminogen (McCullers and Rehg, 2002; Bergmann and Hammerschmidt, 2007; Linke et al., 2012; Siemens et al., 2012; Voss et al., 2012) . Once the initial attachment occurs, bacterial cytotoxins including pneumolysin of pneumococci (Garcia-Suarez Mdel et al., 2007; Zahlten et al., 2015) , α-hemolysin and leukocidins of S. aureus (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) , and Streptolysins S and O and Streptococcal pyrogenic exotoxin B of S. pyogenes (Tsai et al., 1998; Gurel et al., 2013; Siemens et al., 2015 Siemens et al., , 2016 , can synergize with viral counterparts to further increase lung tissue pathology. Additional potential mechanisms by which the initial colonization of the lower respiratory tract and lung tissue damage might occur include potentiation of the development of pneumonia by IAV neuraminidase through enzymatic removal of sialic acid from the lung, thus exposing host receptors for pneumococcal adherence (McCullers and Bartmess, 2003) . The host inflammatory state in response to viral infection can alter presentation of receptors on the surface, thus allowing bacterial invasion (Cundell and Tuomanen, 1994) . As the patient begins to recover from viral infection, secondary bacterial infections might occur (Louria et al., 1959) due to the incomplete wound healing and exposure of host membrane components, including laminin, collagens type I and IV to classical bacterial MSCRAMMs (Louria et al., 1959; Puchelle et al., 2006) .
Epithelial cells are the first responders to infections in the lung, followed by the tissue resident alveolar macrophages. They promote viral clearance via phagocytosis, efferocytosis, and release of cytokines and chemokines to promote immune responses (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Kumagai et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2012; Hillaire et al., 2013) . Respiratory viruses like IAV are able to induce suppression and killing of the resident alveolar macrophages (Figure 2 ) (Ghoneim et al., 2013) . These cells are usually replaced by differentiation of recruited blood derived monocytes into macrophages of different polarization patterns. This in turn creates a delay in pathogen clearance and opens a window for host susceptibility to secondary bacterial infections, colloquially named superinfections (Ghoneim et al., 2013) . In addition, induction of interferons as a response to viral infection compromises the immune sensing of Gram-positive bacteria by neutrophils and macrophages, which would normally clear the bacteria from the lungs (Figure 2 ) (Sun and Metzger, 2008; Tian et al., 2012) . The exact mechanism underlying this phenomenon is still not understood. Several studies suggested that viral RNA activates Toll-like receptors (TLR) 2 and TLR4 and, consequently, the production of type I interferons to promote an antiviral state (Shahangian et al., 2009) . The subsequent infection with Gram-positive bacteria, e.g., pneumococci, enhances the type I interferon expression, which in turn suppresses production of the CCL2 chemokine and recruitment of macrophages (Nakamura Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org FIGURE 2 | The interplay between IAV, bacteria, and the human host. The epithelial damage due to viral replication provides a beneficial environment for bacterial (Bact.) attachment. IAV is able to induce suppression and killing of resident alveolar macrophages (AM), which in turn delays viral clearance. The release of viral RNA activates different immune response pathways resulting in cytokine storm. Type I and III interferons compromise the immune recognition of Gram-positive bacteria by neutrophils and macrophages. In addition, they might suppress natural killer cell function (NK), including release of TNF, which activates alveolar macrophages. After initial inflammation, the situation might worsen due to cellular infiltration of the lungs by neutrophils (PMN), leading to an increased degranulation and tissue damage by effector molecules, including heparin-binding protein (HBP). et al., 2011). Another study by Shahangian et al. (2009) revealed that the antiviral state leads to impaired production of neutrophil chemoattractants CXCL1 and CXCL2, which in turn promotes less effective immune responses due to attenuated neutrophil functions during the early phase of pneumococcal invasion. Other studies found that IAV exposed lungs had impaired natural killer (NK) cell responses in the airway to subsequent S. aureus infection (Small et al., 2010) . Reduced TNFα production by NK cells was identified as a crucial upstream mechanism of depressed antimicrobial activities by alveolar macrophages (Figure 2 ) (Small et al., 2010) . It seems likely that IAV NA is also able to activate host cell receptors in a TGF-β dependent manner, which in turn promotes GAS invasion and subsequent lung pathology (Li et al., 2015) . In vitro studies on the interplay between IAV-pneumococci and human dendritic cells revealed TLR3 as a crucial sensor of viral and bacterial RNA leading to enhanced IL-12p70 production, which in turn might promote an anti-viral state by upregulation of interferons (Yamamoto et al., 2004; Spelmink et al., 2016) . However, it should be noted that depending on the bacterial species the disease manifestation and underlying innate immune responses might vary (Sharma-Chawla et al., 2016) .
A lot of the experimental studies on disease mechanisms and immune responses are based on a subsequent bacterial infection within hours or a few days post IAV infection. However, bacterial infiltrations of the lungs might occur much later, i.e., during the onset of wound healing after partial clearance of IAV, which has been reported in most studies performed in recent years (Snelgrove et al., 2008; Hussell and Cavanagh, 2009 ). These processes are characterized by a general anti-inflammatory state and suppression of mechanisms involved in pathogen clearance due to increased interleukin-10 production (van der Sluijs et al., 2004; Metzger and Sun, 2013) . The anti-inflammatory state suppresses the expression of pattern recognition receptors (PRR) on professional phagocytes leading to impaired phagocytosis and killing of microbes. These events might allow bacterial overgrowth in the lungs and tissue pathology (Sun and Metzger, 2008; Goulding et al., 2011) .
Like other severe infectious diseases caused by single agents, pneumonia is characterized by hyper-inflammatory conditions of the lungs at the onset of infection followed by a hypoinflammatory state with immune paralysis (Morton et al., 2014) . In co-infections, after initial inflammation in response to viral infection the situation might worsen due to bacterial invasion and enhanced cellular infiltration of the lungs by neutrophils, leading to an increased tissue damage and cytokine storm (Figure 2 ) (Conenello et al., 2007; McAuley et al., 2007 McAuley et al., , 2010 Porto and Stein, 2016) . Furthermore, the coagulation system becomes activated and contributes to the pathophysiological response to infection (van der Poll and Herwald, 2014). Bacteria like pneumococci, S. aureus, and GAS can activate and modulate the coagulation system, leading to extensive expression of tissue factor and increasing the risk of severe coagulopathy Shannon et al., 2013; Walters et al., 2016) .
Bacterial pathogens also express a variety of cytolytic toxins that can contribute to inflammation and tissue pathology. Pneumolysin, a pneumococcal pore-forming toxin with low affinity to lung epithelial cells, can damage neutrophils by utilizing P2X7 receptor (Domon et al., 2016) . Staphylococcal cytotoxins (α-toxin and leukocidins, including Panton-Valentine leucocidin, PVL) are associated with severe tissue pathology, strong upregulation of chemokines, and increased neutrophil influx of the lungs (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . GAS toxins, including SLO and SpeB, are capable of directly causing tissue damage and promoting pro-inflammatory states through neutrophil lysis (Snall et al., 2016; Uhlmann et al., 2016) . The cytolytic effects caused by bacterial toxins might synergize with the outcome of IAV cytotoxic accessory protein, PB1-F2, mediated tissue pathology leading to enhanced cytokine production (Ramos and Fernandez-Sesma, 2012) . Taken together, most likely synergistic effects of the pathways that are involved in bacterial and viral inflammation lead to enhanced immune activation and higher morbidity and mortality (Joyce et al., 2009; Koppe et al., 2012; Ramos and Fernandez-Sesma, 2012; Bucasas et al., 2013; Kuri et al., 2013) . Figure 2 summarizes the interplay between virus, bacteria, and host.
Experimental animal models are a useful tool to study in vivo effects of different infectious agents and they represent approximately 3% of all pneumonia research published in peerreview journals (Hraiech et al., 2015) . However, the constant increase of animal studies in the last decades is in contrast to their reproducibility in humans (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Hackam and colleagues identified 2,000 articles published between 1980 and 2006 in seven leading scientific journals that regularly publish animal studies (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Seventy-six out of 2,000 were highly cited with a median citation count of 889. Out of these 76 studies 28 were replicated in human randomized trials, 14 were contradicted, and 34 remained untested (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Only 1.4% of the animal studies published in high-impact journals were translated in human randomized trials (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) , whereas about 44% replication rate was reported for highly cited human studies (Ioannidis, 2005) . In pneumonia models, mammalians are mostly used because of their anatomical and physiological proximity to humans (Hraiech et al., 2015) . To monitor extensive physiological studies, larger mammalian species, including ferrets, dogs, rabbits, pigs, and baboons are the models of choice (Mizgerd and Skerrett, 2008) . However, rodents and in particular mice are used more frequently as a pneumonia model organisms. Rapid reproductive rate, small size, less complicated handling, the ability to reproduce and compare results with already published bacterial and viral mono-infections, detailed knowledge of genetics and immune responses, and a plethora of available reagents to study infections in mice are reasons for the use of these animals. To avoid variations in responses due to genetic diversity inbred mice strains are useful tools for studies aiming to elucidate molecular mechanisms of diseases. In addition, genetic engineering allowed to generate a wide variety of mouse variants with gainof-function, loss-of-function or reporter genes (Mizgerd and Skerrett, 2008) .
As outlined above, many in vivo mice studies on bacterial and viral co-infections provided useful insights into severe pneumonia, including (i) the fact that viral infection primes the host for bacterial susceptibility leading to severe secondary infection (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Shahangian et al., 2009; Chaussee et al., 2011; Nakamura et al., 2011) , (ii) pathogen synergism (Tsai et al., 1998; McCullers and Rehg, 2002; Garcia-Suarez Mdel et al., 2007; Gurel et al., 2013; Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015; Zahlten et al., 2015) , (iii) enhanced inflammatory response at the onset of infection (Korteweg and Gu, 2008; Durbin et al., 2013; Pothlichet et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) leading to increased alveolar damage followed by immune paralysis with defective clearance of microorganisms (Shinya et al., 2006; van Riel et al., 2007 van Riel et al., , 2010 , and (iv) host receptor availability for sustained bacterial infection (Louria et al., 1959; Plotkowski et al., 1993; Cundell and Tuomanen, 1994; Puchelle et al., 2006; Korteweg and Gu, 2008) . However, mouse models for bacterial and/or viral infections have several limitations. Most of the bacterial and viral species under study are human pathogens. In recent years it was also shown that host genetic variations and sex differences have an impact on predisposition, severity, and outcome of infection (Chella Krishnan et al., 2015 While C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice are characterized by a higher resistance, DBA/2 strains are more susceptible and permissive to bacterial and viral strains (Alymova et al., 2011; Chella Krishnan et al., 2015 . In addition, transmission of IAV and bacteria is inefficient in adult mice, thus requiring alternative animal models, including neonatal mice or ferrets (Diavatopoulos et al., 2010; McCullers et al., 2010) . IAV was shown to be essential for pneumococcal transmission from colonized mice to their naive littermates and the transmission occurred only when all mice were infected with IAV (Diavatopoulos et al., 2010) . et al., 2010) . Ferrets are naturally susceptible to IAV isolated from different species, including humans, birds, and swine (Thangavel and Bouvier, 2014) . The infection of ferrets with human seasonal IAV isolates results in an upper respiratory tract infection similar to human influenza infection (Tripp and Tompkins, 2009) . In contrast to mice, non-adapted human IAV can be used for the infection. Unfortunately, there are only few reports on bacterial and IAV co-infections in this model organism. A report by Sanford and Ramsay showed enhanced staphylococcal colonization of the upper respiratory tract in IAV infected animals as compared to non-infected, while no difference between both groups was observed in group B streptococcal infection (Sanford and Ramsay, 1987) . In contrast, Smith and Mc Cullers reported lack of establishment of staphylococcal infection even when ferrets were pre-infected with IAV (Smith and McCullers, 2014) . The biggest advantages of using ferrets as a model include (i) their susceptibility to nonadapted human pathogens, (ii) efficiency in transmitting IAV and bacteria from one individual to another, and (iii) presentation of the clinical signs of disease manifestation akin to human influenza infection. Unfortunately, their limited availability, complex husbandry, and limited accessibility to ferret-specific reagents makes this research difficult to perform (Bouvier and Lowen, 2010) .
In recent years, the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) was also used in pneumonia research. The physiology and anatomy of the guinea pig lung resembles to a certain extent the human lung and this model organism is often used in non-infectious lung diseases, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Canning and Chou, 2008) . In addition, its commercial availability, ease of husbandry, the ability to work with nonadapted pathogens and the efficiency of transmission are reasons for using this in vivo model (Bouvier and Lowen, 2010) . Guinea pigs are susceptible to human, avian, and swine influenza viruses. Although viral replication can be readily detected upon intranasal inoculation in the upper respiratory tract and the lungs, guinea pigs exhibit only minor clinical symptoms (Lowen et al., 2006; Gabbard et al., 2014) . However, the lung pathology of human IAV infected guinea pigs correlates with the clinical severity of human infection (Gabbard et al., 2014) . Transmission of pneumococci in guinea pigs is promoted by co-infection with Sendai virus (Saito et al., 1988) . Guinea pigs infected with pneumococci alone and cage-mated with non-treated contact animals transmitted the bacteria only in 7% of cases, while Sendai-virus infected, co-housed guinea pigs acquired pneumococcal infection in 83% of contacts (Saito et al., 1988) . Another study evaluated antibiotic efficacy in invasive pulmonary infection caused by penicillin resistant pneumococcus (Ponte et al., 1996) . Intratracheal instillation of 3 × 10 9 CFU of S. pneumoniae induced a fatal pneumonia and bacteremia in 85% of untreated animals within 46 h (Ponte et al., 1996) . As with ferrets, there is a paucity of data describing immune responses to pulmonary infectious agents. This is in parts due to the lack of species specific reagents, which is a disadvantage in using this model organism.
Recently, the cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) was reported to be susceptible to IAV. Nasal and pulmonary infection in adult inbred cotton rats did not require viral adaptation (Ottolini et al., 2005) . The infection led to increased breathing rates accompanied by weight loss and decreased body temperature. Replication of IAV was more extensive in nasal tissues than the lung, and persisted for six consecutive days. Tissue pathology included damage of bronchiolar epithelium and the animals developed pneumonia which persisted for nearly 3 weeks (Ottolini et al., 2005) . In bacteriological studies rats are more frequently used. There are numerous rat models investigating the impact of diabetes (Oliveira et al., 2016) , metabolic syndromes (Feng et al., 2015) , cirrhosis , pharmaco-kinetics and dynamics (Antonopoulou et al., 2015; Hoover et al., 2015) , intoxication (Davis et al., 1991) , immunization (Iinuma and Okinaga, 1989) , and general bacterial virulence factors (Shanley et al., 1996) on development of pneumococcal, streptococcal, and staphylococcal pneumonia and lung pathology. Unfortunately, there are only few studies on bacterial and viral co-infections in rats. The first was performed by Harford et al., 1946 (Harford et al., 1946 . The authors concluded that the secondary bacterial pneumonia does not convert the sub-lethal viral infection to a lethal outcome (Harford et al., 1946) . Another study on human respiratory syncytial virus and S. pneumoniae revealed that rats were easily colonized with pneumococci, but viral replication after subsequent infection was strain dependent. In addition, neither pneumococci nor the virus spread from the upper to the lower respiratory tract, and neither pathogen was transmitted to naive cage mates . Although rats share a lot of immune features with humans, including nitric oxide production by macrophages (Carsillo et al., 2009) , the biggest disadvantages are low animal availability, aggressiveness of the species, and the lack of specific reagents.
Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) are well known for their use in studying cardiovascular diseases, antibody production, and eye research. Rabbits were also employed to study pneumonia, although only a few models are available. Typical read-out parameters include survival, leukocyte infiltration of the lungs, lung pathology, and assessment of drug concentration in serum. One of the first studies on pneumococcal pneumonia in rabbits was performed in Kline and Winternitz (1913) . This study revealed that rabbits possess an active immunity if they have recovered from one attack of experimental pneumonia and they may subsequently resist repeated intra-tracheal dosages of pneumococci (Kline and Winternitz, 1913) . In 1926 an infection by inhalation of Type I pneumococci was established in rabbits (Stillman and Branch, 1926) . The bacteria infiltrated easily the lower respiratory tract and pneumococci which reached the lungs usually disappeared within hours and fatal septicemia appeared in some of the animals (Stillman and Branch, 1926) . Most recent rabbit models of pneumococcal and staphylococcal pneumonia are based on intra-bronchial or intra-pulmonary infections which make them useful for pathogenesis (Diep et al., 2010 (Diep et al., , 2017 , as well as drug efficiency and efficacy studies (Cabellos et al., 1992; Croisier-Bertin et al., 2011) . However, this infection route requires surgery and species-specific reagents are scarce. In IAV research rabbits are frequently used for antibody production and for studies on antibody kinetics following single or multiple IAV administrations (Loza-Tulimowska et al., 1977) . Also, rabbits are used for safety investigations of vaccines (e.g., CoVaccine HT or Aflunov) (Heldens et al., 2010; Gasparini et al., 2012) . In recent years the shedding of avian IAV by cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.) was investigated revealing that nasally and orally inoculated cottontails shed relatively large quantities of viral RNA (Root et al., 2014) . Notably, low viral titers were found to be sufficient to initiate viral replication in cottontails (Root et al., 2017) . However, despite their susceptibility to IAV infection, rabbits are only rarely used as model for IAV pathogenesis since they offer no improvement over other established infection models.
Macaques represent the major non-human primate for studying infectious diseases. They are omnivorous and adaptable. The species most commonly used are rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) and cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fasciluraris).
Although it was shown early that macaques were susceptible to IAV (Saslaw et al., 1946) , the animal models of choice remained ferrets and mice. Recently, macaques have been used to compare the pathogenesis of highly virulent 1918 pandemic IAV and the pathogenic bird flu strain (H5N1) with a conventional H1N1 strain (Rimmelzwaan et al., 2001) . Cynomolgus macaques infected with highly pathogenic H5N1 developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, fever, and necrotizing pneumonia (Rimmelzwaan et al., 2001) . The 1918 IAV strain induced dysregulation of the antiviral response leading to insufficient protection of the host, which in turn resulted in acute respiratory distress and a fatal outcome (Kobasa et al., 2007) . The 2009 pandemic H1N1 US isolate caused severe pathological lesions in the lungs of the macaques (Itoh et al., 2009 ). The three studies mentioned above used combined intratracheal delivery of high doses of virus. A recent study by Marriott et al. analyzed the outcome of challenge routes, including inhaled aerosol and intra-nasal instillation with low to moderate doses of H1N1 in cynomolgus macaques (Marriott et al., 2016) . Virus replication was detected in all challenge groups, although the disease remained sub-clinical.
In bacteriological studies non-human primates are rarely used. For group A streptococcal infection longitudinal transcriptome analyses were performed in experimental pharyngitis (Virtaneva et al., 2005) and lower respiratory tract infection in cynomolgus macaques (Olsen et al., 2010a) . The lower respiratory tract disease observed in macaques after GAS infection mimicked the clinical and pathological features of severe bronchopneumonia in humans (Olsen et al., 2010a) . Another study by Olsen and colleagues analyzed the contribution of PVL of a highly virulent USA300 S. aureus strain in respiratory infection (Olsen et al., 2010b) . Although the lower respiratory tract disease observed in monkey mimicked the clinical and pathological features of early mild to moderate pneumonia in humans, no involvement of PVL in lung pathology or immune cell influx of the lungs could be detected (Olsen et al., 2010b) . The same research group has developed a non-lethal IAV (H3N2)-S. aureus co-infection model in cynomolgus macaques (Kobayashi et al., 2013) . Pneumonia progression was monitored by clinical parameters assessment, blood chemistry, nasal swabs, and pathology of the lungs. Seasonal IAV infection in healthy cynomolgus macaques caused mild pneumonia, but did not predispose the animals to subsequent severe infection with the USA300 clone (Kobayashi et al., 2013) .
Although macaques are frequently used for evaluation of pneumococcal vaccine efficacy, including testing the impact of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine on antigen-specific memory B cell repertoires (Jia et al., 2017) , only two studies on pneumococcal carriage and pneumonia were conducted in the last decade. In 2013, Philipp and colleagues analyzed the carriage rate of pneumococcus in 158 colony animals. None of the surveyed rhesus macaques carried S. pneumoniae in the nasopharynx (Philipp et al., 2012) . The authors concluded that rhesus macaque is probably not a natural host of pneumococci. But, when infants were colonized with 19F strain via nasopharyngeal instillation, the colonization was induced in eight of eight infants, lasted for 2 weeks in all animals and for 7 weeks in more than 60% (Philipp et al., 2012) . The same group tested detoxified pneumolysin (dPly) and pneumococcal histidine triad protein D (PhtD) as potential vaccine candidates to prevent pneumonia (Denoel et al., 2011) . After immunization the rhesus macaques were challenged with a 19F pneumococcal strain. AS02-adjuvanted PhtD-dPly vaccine protected the animals against S. pneumoniae-induced pneumonia, which was linked to the capacity (i) to greatly reduce bacterial load within the first week post-challenge and (ii) the levels of PhtD-and Ply-specific antibodies (Denoel et al., 2011) . Although only a few macaque studies on pneumonia exist, due to the close proximity to humans in terms of physiology and immunity, these animals can be a good model in the context of translational studies evaluating therapeutics and prophylaxis.
Despite the wide use of different animal models, the optimal in vivo model for human pneumonia remains to be identified. Small mammals including rodents are well known from a biological, genetic, and immunological point of view and are easy to maintain. The choice of these particular animals for infectious disease studies is often a result of a compromise between technical and financial options. However, they are also far from humans' anatomy, physiology, immunology, and susceptibility to exclusively human pathogens. The experimental animal model should be chosen based on responses comparable to humans. Primates are usually legally reserved to specific topics. In this case, pigs could be an appropriate model system for studying infectious diseases including pneumonia (Figure 1) . The composition and size of the porcine genome is comparable to that of humans (Hart et al., 2007) . In addition, human and porcine organs have many common features and functions (Swindle et al., 2012) . The upper respiratory tract of humans and pigs, including the lymphoid tissue in the nasopharynx, is anatomically similar. Furthermore, like humans, pigs possess tonsils, which are absent in mice (Horter et al., 2003) . A major advantage of studying infectious diseases by utilizing pigs as a host organism is that pigs have a full set of innate and adaptive immune effectors. According to whole genome sequencing results the porcine immune system resembles over 80% of the human immune system, whereas mice share less than 10% with humans (Dawson et al., 2016) . Most of the immune cell compartments identified in humans are also present in pigs (Piriou-Guzylack and Salmon, 2008; Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In contrast to mice and similar to humans, pigs have 50-70% of circulating polymorph nuclear cells (Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In addition, all functional cytokines or orthologs involved in Th1, Th2, Th17, and Treg paradigm and corresponding immune cells have been described in pigs (Murtaugh et al., 2009; Kaser et al., 2011; Kiros et al., 2011) . Especially the very prominent human pro-inflammatory chemo-attractant, CXCL8, is present as an ortholog in pigs, whereas there is no homologue in mice (Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In contrast to human monocytes, which can be divided in three subclasses (classical CD14 + CD16 − , nonclassical CD14 + CD16 + , and intermediate CD14 ++ CD16 + ), porcine monocytes consist of four subclasses (Chamorro et al., 2005; Fairbairn et al., 2013) . Like human monocytes they express adhesion molecules, such as VLA-4 and LFA-1 and costimulatory molecules, including CD80 and CD86 (Chamorro et al., 2005) .
The pig has previously been used to mimic a number of human infectious diseases. Examples for S. aureus infections with this model organism are wound infections Svedman et al., 1989) , osteomyelitis (Jensen et al., 2010) , and sepsis (Nielsen et al., 2009) . Intravenous inoculation of piglets with pneumococci led to bacteremia during a 5 days period and was associated with fever and septic arthritis. Intranasal inoculation of piglets led to colonization for at least six consecutive days without causing clinical signs (De Greeff et al., 2016) . In addition, research on respiratory infections of pigs by human pathogens including S. aureus (Luna et al., 2009) , Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Gil et al., 2010) , Bordetella pertussis (Elahi et al., 2007) , Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Luna et al., 2009) , and IAV (Khatri et al., 2010) , was performed in recent years. The fact that pigs and humans are infected with identical subtypes of IAV (H1N1, H3N2), and show similar clinical presentation and pathogenesis, makes pigs an ideal model organism for studies on respiratory co-infections (Van Reeth et al., 1998) . Especially IAV infections are already well established in swine (Van Reeth et al., 1998 , 2002a Jung et al., 2007; Khatri et al., 2010; Barbe et al., 2011) .
In addition to the limited number of publications on pigs and human pathogens, a lot can be translated and learned from studies on the porcine zoonotic pathogen Streptococcus suis. S. suis usually inhabits mucosal surfaces of tonsils, nares, genital and alimentary tract of piglets. Once the microbial balance is disturbed, the bacteria can cause meningitis, septicemia, arthritis, and pneumonia in pigs (Staats et al., 1997) . Some S. suis strains are considered to be hyper-virulent and others hypo-or avirulent. In general, serotype 2 is most frequently isolated from diseased pigs (Staats et al., 1997) . S. suis can also cause severe diseases in humans including septicemia, meningitis, arthritis, and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (Tang et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2006; Gottschalk et al., 2007) . Although many in vivo studies on S. suis have been performed by utilizing mice as a model organism (Seitz et al., 2012; Auger et al., 2016) , several other studies have shown the advantage of using swine as a natural host for S. suis (Bi et al., 2014; Ferrando et al., 2015) . A recent publication by Lin and colleagues on H1N1 and S. suis co-infected piglets demonstrated the synergistic effects of both pathogens (Lin et al., 2015) . Co-infected piglets had more severe clinical presentation and pathological changes in the lung, as compared to animals infected with single pathogens (Lin et al., 2015) . In addition, genes associated with immune responses, inflammatory cytokine production, and apoptotic pathways were highly overexpressed in the coinfected group (Lin et al., 2015) . Although the porcine model seems to be ideal to mimic human infectious diseases, there are also disadvantages, including, e.g., requirement for specialized experimental animal facilities, time consuming management, high maintenance costs, and limited availability of transgenic animals.
Although the use of animals contributes greatly to our understanding of infectious diseases, human 3D-organotypic tissue models and ex vivo organ tissues should be considered, as they are most valuable tools to study host-pathogen interactions in a more complex setting (Figure 1) . Tissue engineering approaches were originally focused on regenerative medicine (Langer and Vacanti, 1993) . In contrast to standard monolayer cell cultures, tissue models much more closely resemble the 3D architecture, cellular composition, and matrix complexity of the respective organ. In recent years tissue engineering was also successfully employed in a number of studies in infectious diseases, including Zika virus infections of cerebral organoids (Lancaster et al., 2013; Dang et al., 2016) , Helicobacter pylori infections of gastric epithelial organoids (McCracken et al., 2014; Schlaermann et al., 2016) , Escherichia coli and Rotavirus infections of gastrointestinal and small intestinal enteroids (Saxena et al., 2015; VanDussen et al., 2015) , Entamoeba histolytica or Hepatitis B virus infections of hepatic sinusoid tissue (Petropolis et al., 2014 (Petropolis et al., , 2016 , group A and G streptococcal or staphylococcal infections of skin tissue models Mairpady Shambat et al., 2016) , and staphylococcal and Andes hantavirus infections of human lung tissue (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015; Sundstrom et al., 2016) . The adaptability of these tissue-engineered models to multiple pathogens suggests a great potential for studies of infectious diseases. For instance, the lung tissue model relevant for pneumonia consists of lung fibroblasts embedded in a collagen matrix with a stratified epithelial layer on top (Nguyen Hoang et al., 2012) . The engineered tissue is suitable for implanting and studying immune cells, including dendritic cells, monocytes, macrophages, and even peripheral blood mononuclear cells (Nguyen Hoang et al., 2012; Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . A recent publication demonstrated a two-hit-event of lung pathology in staphylococcal necrotizing pneumonia (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . While the α-toxin had direct damaging effect on the lung epithelium, PVL induced lung pathology indirectly through the lysis of neutrophils (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . All the studies mentioned above highlight a significant progress in the field of infectious diseases not only from a scientific point of view but also by contributing to the three R principle of animal experimentation (Russell, 1995) .
On these terms, the use of cultured ex vivo human organ biopsies, which are rare due to ethical considerations, is an additional option to study host-pathogen interactions. This ex vivo system may overcome even the limitations of the engineered tissue. In recent years human ex vivo lung tissue infections with various microorganisms, including pneumococci (Szymanski et al., 2012; Fatykhova et al., 2015) , Bacillus anthracis (Chakrabarty et al., 2007) , Haemophilus influenzae (Zhang et al., 2016) , and IAV (Nicholls et al., 2007; Chan et al., 2009) , were performed. In the human setting, most of the work focused on tropism, severity of infections, release of inflammatory mediators, and replication rates of the microorganisms. In addition, recently also experiments on swine influenza virus (SIV) and S. suis co-infections of the porcine ex vivo lung slices were reported. Meng and colleagues showed that SIV promotes subsequent bacterial infections in a two-step process of which the first initial step was dependent on capsule expression, whereas the second step of bacterial invasion into deeper layers was capsuleindependent and required virus-mediated damage (Meng et al., 2015) . However, this is just a beginning and more investigations are needed to unravel the complexity underlying these highly invasive infections.
In summary, bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract are highly lethal and present a dramatic burden for the global health system. The synergy between bacterial and viral infectious agents is related to a variety of factors, including epithelial barrier damage, exaggerated innate immune response, and cytokine storm. Despite many advances in recent years, more knowledge on mechanisms and immunology of disease progression is needed. The synergistic mechanisms between viruses and bacteria leading to enhanced morbidity and mortality are poorly understood. In vivo characterizations of these severe infections are mainly performed in mice which poorly resemble the human physiology and immune system. Several efforts have been made to establish other models, including ferrets, guinea pigs, rabbits, rats, and non-human primates. However, all have limitations. Here, we suggest using the porcine model, which provides obvious advantages in studies of human infectious diseases and should be considered much more frequent for future studies on severe infectious diseases, including pneumonia. | What conditions are caused by Staphylococcus aureus? | 5,175 | mild skin infections to fatal necrotizing pneumonia | 10,739 |
1,664 | Port d’Entrée for Respiratory Infections – Does the Influenza A Virus Pave the Way for Bacteria?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5742597/
SHA: ee0050c6fb81a4067d134010d0c80d21edb5df0b
Authors: Siemens, Nikolai; Oehmcke-Hecht, Sonja; Mettenleiter, Thomas C.; Kreikemeyer, Bernd; Valentin-Weigand, Peter; Hammerschmidt, Sven
Date: 2017-12-21
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02602
License: cc-by
Abstract: Bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract are life-threatening and present a global burden to the global community. Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus pyogenes are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract. Imbalances through acquisition of seasonal viruses, e.g., Influenza A virus, can lead to bacterial dissemination to the lower respiratory tract, which in turn can result in severe pneumonia. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract and focus on potential experimental models suitable for mimicking this disease. Transmission of IAV and pneumonia is mainly modeled by mouse infection. Few studies utilizing ferrets, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and non-human primates are also available. The knowledge gained from these studies led to important discoveries and advances in understanding these infectious diseases. Nevertheless, mouse and other infection models have limitations, especially in translation of the discoveries to humans. Here, we suggest the use of human engineered lung tissue, human ex vivo lung tissue, and porcine models to study respiratory co-infections, which might contribute to a greater translation of the results to humans and improve both, animal and human health.
Text: In recent years the human microbiota is more and more recognized to play a crucial role in pathogenesis of many diseases (Weinstock, 2012) . The upper respiratory tract is a natural niche for potentially pathogenic bacteria embedded in commensal communities forming the nasopharyngeal microbiome. In particular, the microbial communities of the nasopharynx (Hilty et al., 2012) are associated with respiratory diseases, i.e., severe pneumonia, which are responsible for substantial mortality and morbidity in humans worldwide (Prina et al., 2016) . The composition of the nasopharyngeal microbiome is highly dynamic (Biesbroek et al., 2014a,b,c) and many factors, including environmental and host factors, can affect microbial colonization (Koppen et al., 2015) . Recent studies on neonates have shown that the respiratory microbiota develops from initially maternally transmitted mixed flora with predominance of Streptococcus viridans species to niche-specific bacterial profiles containing mostly Staphylococcus aureus at around 1 week of age (Bosch et al., 2016a) . Between 2 weeks and 6 months after birth, the staphylococcal predominance declines and colonization with Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococci) as a predominant pathobiont emerges (Miller et al., 2011; Bosch et al., 2016a,b) . The dynamic microbiome composition is guaranteed through the interplay between bacterial species, other microbes, and changing environmental conditions, as well as host-bacteria interactions (Blaser and Falkow, 2009 ). Most of the time, the microbiome and its interplay with the human host are believed to be beneficial for both (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Murphy et al., 2009 ). However, imbalances in microbial composition can lead to acquisition of new viral or bacterial species and invasion of potential pathogens, which in turn can become detrimental, especially in elderly people and children with an exhausted or immature immune system (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Blaser and Falkow, 2009; Murphy et al., 2009) .
One particular example showing imbalances introduced by single dosage of antibiotics was demonstrated by Ichinohe and colleagues (Ichinohe et al., 2011) . While commensal respiratory microbiota facilitated immune-support against Influenza A virus infection (IAV), oral treatment with antibiotics resulted not only in a shift of bacterial composition, but also in impaired CD4 T-, CD8 T-, and B-cell immunity following infection with IAV in mice (Ichinohe et al., 2011) . Analyses of human oropharyngeal microbiomes during the 2009 H1N1 IAV pandemic revealed that at the phylum level, the abundance of Fermicutes and Proteobacteria was augmented in pneumonia patients as compared to healthy controls (Leung et al., 2013) . However, another study published in the same year contradicted these results (Chaban et al., 2013) . Chaban and colleagues analyzed microbiomes of 65 patients from H1N1 IAV outbreak in 2009. Although the phylogenetic composition of pneumonia patients was dominated by Fermicutes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria, no significant differences between the patients and healthy controls or any other variables tested, including age and gender, were observed (Chaban et al., 2013) .
In this review we discuss secondary bacterial infections of the respiratory tract after primary infection by IAV with a focus on mechanisms by which these interactions are potentially mediated, and we will provide insight into the host contribution and immunological consequences. We further focus on potential animal models suitable for mimicking asymptomatic bacterial colonization and disease progression and thus, enabling to study adaptation strategies, viral-bacterial interactions, and immune responses in these highly lethal co-infections.
Influenza A viruses belong to the family of Orthomyxoviridae and based on the antigenicity of their haemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) they are classified into 16 classical HA and 9 classical NA subtypes (Neumann et al., 2009) . The 8-segmented genomes of influenza A viruses are characterized by a significant plasticity. Due to point mutations and re-assortment events new variants or strains with epidemic or pandemic potential emerge (Neumann et al., 2009 ). In addition, influenza can be transmitted between animals, including swine, birds, horses, and humans, making it a zoonotic disease (van der Meer et al., 2010) . Seasonal influenza usually resolves without consequences in healthy individuals. However, it is estimated that seasonal influenza effects 5-10% of the world's population resulting in about 250,000 to 500,000 deaths annually (Tjon-Kon-Fat et al., 2016) . At greater risk to develop secondary bacterial pneumonia are individuals with comorbidities, elderly people (age > 65), pregnant women, and children under the age of one (Rothberg et al., 2008) .
For a long time it was considered that the H1N1 strain, an avian-like H1N1 virus, directly caused most of the fatalities during the 1918-1919 pandemic (Spanish Flu), often from a hemorrhagic pneumonitis rapidly progressing to acute respiratory distress syndrome and death (Osterholm, 2005; Gerberding, 2006; Oxford et al., 2006) . The pandemic killed around 50 million people worldwide and remains unique in its severity compared to other big outbreaks. However, many of the findings have been reinterpreted in recent years (Brundage and Shanks, 2007; Chien et al., 2009) . It is estimated that around 95% of all severe cases and deaths were attributed to secondary infections with bacterial pathogens, most predominantly by Streptococcus pneumoniae (Morens et al., 2008) . Individual studies limited to certain regions identified also other pathogens commonly colonizing the respiratory tract, including Staphylococcus aureus, group A streptococcus (GAS) and Haemophilus influenzae (Brundage and Shanks, 2008) . During the next two pandemics (H2N2 Asian Flu 1957 and H3N2 Hong Kong Flu 1968 −1969 bacterial co-infections were less likely the cause of death compared to the Spanish Flu (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957; Trotter et al., 1959) . Still, pneumonia accounted for about 44% of deaths during the Asian Flu (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957) . Most fatalities resulting from pneumonia occurred in individuals with chronic conditions, i.e., chronic lung diseases, rheumatic carditis, and hypertension (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957) . In 1957-1958, S. aureus was predominantly isolated from fatal pneumonia cases (Hers et al., 1957 (Hers et al., , 1958 Robertson et al., 1958; Martin et al., 1959) , whereas S. pneumoniae returned as predominant cause of severe pneumonia during the Hong Kong Flu (Sharrar, 1969; Bisno et al., 1971; Burk et al., 1971; Schwarzmann et al., 1971) . Forty years later in 2009, a novel H1N1 virus of swine origin emerged and caused again a pandemic (Dawood et al., 2009 (Dawood et al., , 2012 . In contrast to Asian and Hong Kong Flu, mortality rates were rather low, but most deaths occurred in healthy young individuals with no underlying conditions (Reichert et al., 2010; Monsalvo et al., 2011; Dawood et al., 2012) . About 25-50% of severe or fatal cases were linked to complications due to bacterial pneumonia (Dominguez-Cherit et al., 2009; Estenssoro et al., 2010; Mauad et al., 2010; Shieh et al., 2010 ). Although regional variations occurred, pneumococci and S. aureus were the most frequently isolated bacterial species (Mauad et al., 2010; Shieh et al., 2010; Rice et al., 2012) . Group A streptococcus was absent in many local pneumonia outbreaks associated with viruses, but was predominant in others (Brundage and Shanks, 2008; Ampofo et al., 2010) . When it does appear, it is typically third in incidence (Chaussee et al., 2011) . Overall, data on pandemic outbreaks suggest that disease severity and mortality can be linked to secondary bacterial pathogens with variations depending on regions and state of immunity of the population (Brundage and Shanks, 2008; Shanks et al., 2010 Shanks et al., , 2011 McCullers, 2013) .
There is increasing evidence that the nasopharyngeal microbiota plays an important role in the pathogenesis of acute viral respiratory infections (Teo et al., 2015; de Steenhuijsen Piters et al., 2016; Rosas-Salazar et al., 2016a,b) . Respiratory viruses, including IAV, have been shown to alter bacterial adherence and colonization leading to an increased risk of secondary bacterial infections (Tregoning and Schwarze, 2010) . Pneumococci, S. aureus, and GAS are important human Gram-positive pathogens. All of them are frequent colonizers of the human nasopharynx and they share many features including pathogenic mechanisms and clinical aspects (Figure 1) . However, they also have unique properties.
Staphylococcus aureus colonizes persistently about 30% of the human population and typical niches include nares, axillae, and skin (Peacock et al., 2001; von Eiff et al., 2001; van Belkum et al., 2009) . They cause a variety of clinical manifestations ranging from mild skin infections to fatal necrotizing pneumonia. In the last decades, the pathogen became resistant to an increasing number of antibiotics and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is now a major cause of hospital acquired infections (Hartman and Tomasz, 1984; Ubukata et al., 1989; Zetola et al., 2005) . Also the rise of community-acquired S. aureus strains is of special concern, because certain clones are associated with very severe infections (Rasigade et al., 2010) . Recent prospective studies demonstrated an increase in proportion of communityacquired methicillin-sensitive S. aureus in severe pneumonia cases (McCaskill et al., 2007; Sicot et al., 2013) .
The pneumococcus is a typical colonizer of the human nasopharynx. About 20-50% of healthy children and 8-30% of healthy adults are asymptomatically colonized (McCullers, 2006) . Pneumococci cause diseases ranging from mild, i.e., sinusitis, conjunctivitis, and otitis media, to more severe and potentially life-threatening infections, including communityacquired pneumonia, bacteraemia, and meningitis (Bogaert et al., 2004; Valles et al., 2016) . This bacterium is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates in risk groups such as immunocompromised individuals, children, and elderly (Black et al., 2010; Valles et al., 2016) .
Group A streptococci colonize the mouth and upper respiratory tract in about 2-5% of world's population (Okumura and Nizet, 2014) . The most common, non-invasive and mild infections caused by GAS are tonsillitis and pharyngitis with estimated 600 million cases per year (Carapetis et al., 2005) .
Listed as number nine in the list of global killers with around 500,000 deaths annually (Carapetis et al., 2005) , it is obvious that this pathogen can cause severe invasive infections, including pneumonia, sepsis, streptococcal toxic shock syndrome, and necrotizing skin infections (Cunningham, 2000; Carapetis et al., 2005) .
Although all three pathogens are able to cause highly lethal diseases, the most fatal remains the pneumococcus, estimated to cause ca. 10% of all deaths in children below 5 years of age (O'Brien et al., 2009) , in the elderly (Marrie et al., 2017) , and in immuno-compromised individuals (Baxter et al., 2016) .
Influenza A virus binds via HA to either α2,3or α2,6-linked sialic acid at the surface of epithelial cells of the upper and lower respiratory tract (Webster et al., 1992) . Seasonal strains show usually affinity to α2,6-linked sialic acids that are expressed in the human trachea, whereas avian-like viruses preferentially bind to α2,3-linked sialic acids of alveolar type II cells (Shinya et al., 2006; van Riel et al., 2007 van Riel et al., , 2010 . The release of viral genomic RNA into the cytosol activates different immune response pathways. Binding of viral RNA to retinoic acid inducible gene 1 induces the expression of type I and III interferons and activates transcription factor NF-κB, which in turn activates the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines (Durbin et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) . In addition, inflammasome activation leads to the release of IL-1β and IL-18 (Pothlichet et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) . All these responses are supposed to promote viral clearance. However, the presence of viral proteins during infection induces also direct activation of the intrinsic or indirectly the activation of the extrinsic apoptotic pathway via production of inflammatory cytokines, resulting in apoptosis or even necrosis of the epithelium (Korteweg and Gu, 2008) . Furthermore, aberrant coagulation induced by virus infection causes a hyper-inflammatory response (Yang and Tang, 2016) . All these events contribute to lung tissue injury (Imai et al., 2008; Davidson et al., 2014) . The epithelial damage due to viral replication provides a beneficial environment for initial bacterial attachment (Plotkowski et al., 1993) . On the other hand, already colonized bacteria might enhance influenza virus virulence either by directly secreting proteases that cleave and activate HA (Figure 2 ) (Bottcher-Friebertshauser et al., 2013) or, indirectly, by activating host proteases such as plasminogen, which increases replication rates and infectivity of the virus (Scheiblauer et al., 1992; Tse and Whittaker, 2015) .
Potentially pathogenic bacteria, including the three species mentioned above, express an arsenal of virulence factors responsible for attachment to human host structures. Microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules FIGURE 1 | Potential models to study bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract. S. pneumoniae, S. aureus, S. pyogenes, and S. suis are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract. Seasonal IAV infection can lead to an increased risk of secondary bacterial infections, i.e., pneumonia. Several experimental models can be used for studying these severe infections. Patient samples, including ex vivo lung tissue are materials of choice, but they are rare due to ethical considerations. Tissue engineering approaches closely resemble the 3D architecture, cellular composition, and matrix complexity of the respective organ and were proven as useful tool to study infectious diseases. In vivo bacterial and viral co-infections are mainly performed in mice, which does not necessarily resemble the human physiology and immune system. Thus, we suggest using the porcine model, which nearly resembles over 80% of the human immune system.
(MSCRAMMs), such as PspC, PspA, and PsaA in pneumococci (Hammerschmidt, 2006) , SPA, FnbA, ClfA, and ClfB in S. aureus (Bartlett and Hulten, 2010; Otto, 2010) , and M-protein, PrtF1, and PrtF2 in GAS (Cunningham, 2000) , respectively, and socalled moon-lightning proteins expressed by all three species, e.g., GAPDH, enolase or PGK (Fulde et al., 2013) , enable the bacteria to attach to damaged cells or molecules of the extracellular matrix, including fibronectin, fibrin, fibrinogen, and collagens, or fibrinolytic proteins like plasminogen (McCullers and Rehg, 2002; Bergmann and Hammerschmidt, 2007; Linke et al., 2012; Siemens et al., 2012; Voss et al., 2012) . Once the initial attachment occurs, bacterial cytotoxins including pneumolysin of pneumococci (Garcia-Suarez Mdel et al., 2007; Zahlten et al., 2015) , α-hemolysin and leukocidins of S. aureus (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) , and Streptolysins S and O and Streptococcal pyrogenic exotoxin B of S. pyogenes (Tsai et al., 1998; Gurel et al., 2013; Siemens et al., 2015 Siemens et al., , 2016 , can synergize with viral counterparts to further increase lung tissue pathology. Additional potential mechanisms by which the initial colonization of the lower respiratory tract and lung tissue damage might occur include potentiation of the development of pneumonia by IAV neuraminidase through enzymatic removal of sialic acid from the lung, thus exposing host receptors for pneumococcal adherence (McCullers and Bartmess, 2003) . The host inflammatory state in response to viral infection can alter presentation of receptors on the surface, thus allowing bacterial invasion (Cundell and Tuomanen, 1994) . As the patient begins to recover from viral infection, secondary bacterial infections might occur (Louria et al., 1959) due to the incomplete wound healing and exposure of host membrane components, including laminin, collagens type I and IV to classical bacterial MSCRAMMs (Louria et al., 1959; Puchelle et al., 2006) .
Epithelial cells are the first responders to infections in the lung, followed by the tissue resident alveolar macrophages. They promote viral clearance via phagocytosis, efferocytosis, and release of cytokines and chemokines to promote immune responses (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Kumagai et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2012; Hillaire et al., 2013) . Respiratory viruses like IAV are able to induce suppression and killing of the resident alveolar macrophages (Figure 2 ) (Ghoneim et al., 2013) . These cells are usually replaced by differentiation of recruited blood derived monocytes into macrophages of different polarization patterns. This in turn creates a delay in pathogen clearance and opens a window for host susceptibility to secondary bacterial infections, colloquially named superinfections (Ghoneim et al., 2013) . In addition, induction of interferons as a response to viral infection compromises the immune sensing of Gram-positive bacteria by neutrophils and macrophages, which would normally clear the bacteria from the lungs (Figure 2 ) (Sun and Metzger, 2008; Tian et al., 2012) . The exact mechanism underlying this phenomenon is still not understood. Several studies suggested that viral RNA activates Toll-like receptors (TLR) 2 and TLR4 and, consequently, the production of type I interferons to promote an antiviral state (Shahangian et al., 2009) . The subsequent infection with Gram-positive bacteria, e.g., pneumococci, enhances the type I interferon expression, which in turn suppresses production of the CCL2 chemokine and recruitment of macrophages (Nakamura Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org FIGURE 2 | The interplay between IAV, bacteria, and the human host. The epithelial damage due to viral replication provides a beneficial environment for bacterial (Bact.) attachment. IAV is able to induce suppression and killing of resident alveolar macrophages (AM), which in turn delays viral clearance. The release of viral RNA activates different immune response pathways resulting in cytokine storm. Type I and III interferons compromise the immune recognition of Gram-positive bacteria by neutrophils and macrophages. In addition, they might suppress natural killer cell function (NK), including release of TNF, which activates alveolar macrophages. After initial inflammation, the situation might worsen due to cellular infiltration of the lungs by neutrophils (PMN), leading to an increased degranulation and tissue damage by effector molecules, including heparin-binding protein (HBP). et al., 2011). Another study by Shahangian et al. (2009) revealed that the antiviral state leads to impaired production of neutrophil chemoattractants CXCL1 and CXCL2, which in turn promotes less effective immune responses due to attenuated neutrophil functions during the early phase of pneumococcal invasion. Other studies found that IAV exposed lungs had impaired natural killer (NK) cell responses in the airway to subsequent S. aureus infection (Small et al., 2010) . Reduced TNFα production by NK cells was identified as a crucial upstream mechanism of depressed antimicrobial activities by alveolar macrophages (Figure 2 ) (Small et al., 2010) . It seems likely that IAV NA is also able to activate host cell receptors in a TGF-β dependent manner, which in turn promotes GAS invasion and subsequent lung pathology (Li et al., 2015) . In vitro studies on the interplay between IAV-pneumococci and human dendritic cells revealed TLR3 as a crucial sensor of viral and bacterial RNA leading to enhanced IL-12p70 production, which in turn might promote an anti-viral state by upregulation of interferons (Yamamoto et al., 2004; Spelmink et al., 2016) . However, it should be noted that depending on the bacterial species the disease manifestation and underlying innate immune responses might vary (Sharma-Chawla et al., 2016) .
A lot of the experimental studies on disease mechanisms and immune responses are based on a subsequent bacterial infection within hours or a few days post IAV infection. However, bacterial infiltrations of the lungs might occur much later, i.e., during the onset of wound healing after partial clearance of IAV, which has been reported in most studies performed in recent years (Snelgrove et al., 2008; Hussell and Cavanagh, 2009 ). These processes are characterized by a general anti-inflammatory state and suppression of mechanisms involved in pathogen clearance due to increased interleukin-10 production (van der Sluijs et al., 2004; Metzger and Sun, 2013) . The anti-inflammatory state suppresses the expression of pattern recognition receptors (PRR) on professional phagocytes leading to impaired phagocytosis and killing of microbes. These events might allow bacterial overgrowth in the lungs and tissue pathology (Sun and Metzger, 2008; Goulding et al., 2011) .
Like other severe infectious diseases caused by single agents, pneumonia is characterized by hyper-inflammatory conditions of the lungs at the onset of infection followed by a hypoinflammatory state with immune paralysis (Morton et al., 2014) . In co-infections, after initial inflammation in response to viral infection the situation might worsen due to bacterial invasion and enhanced cellular infiltration of the lungs by neutrophils, leading to an increased tissue damage and cytokine storm (Figure 2 ) (Conenello et al., 2007; McAuley et al., 2007 McAuley et al., , 2010 Porto and Stein, 2016) . Furthermore, the coagulation system becomes activated and contributes to the pathophysiological response to infection (van der Poll and Herwald, 2014). Bacteria like pneumococci, S. aureus, and GAS can activate and modulate the coagulation system, leading to extensive expression of tissue factor and increasing the risk of severe coagulopathy Shannon et al., 2013; Walters et al., 2016) .
Bacterial pathogens also express a variety of cytolytic toxins that can contribute to inflammation and tissue pathology. Pneumolysin, a pneumococcal pore-forming toxin with low affinity to lung epithelial cells, can damage neutrophils by utilizing P2X7 receptor (Domon et al., 2016) . Staphylococcal cytotoxins (α-toxin and leukocidins, including Panton-Valentine leucocidin, PVL) are associated with severe tissue pathology, strong upregulation of chemokines, and increased neutrophil influx of the lungs (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . GAS toxins, including SLO and SpeB, are capable of directly causing tissue damage and promoting pro-inflammatory states through neutrophil lysis (Snall et al., 2016; Uhlmann et al., 2016) . The cytolytic effects caused by bacterial toxins might synergize with the outcome of IAV cytotoxic accessory protein, PB1-F2, mediated tissue pathology leading to enhanced cytokine production (Ramos and Fernandez-Sesma, 2012) . Taken together, most likely synergistic effects of the pathways that are involved in bacterial and viral inflammation lead to enhanced immune activation and higher morbidity and mortality (Joyce et al., 2009; Koppe et al., 2012; Ramos and Fernandez-Sesma, 2012; Bucasas et al., 2013; Kuri et al., 2013) . Figure 2 summarizes the interplay between virus, bacteria, and host.
Experimental animal models are a useful tool to study in vivo effects of different infectious agents and they represent approximately 3% of all pneumonia research published in peerreview journals (Hraiech et al., 2015) . However, the constant increase of animal studies in the last decades is in contrast to their reproducibility in humans (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Hackam and colleagues identified 2,000 articles published between 1980 and 2006 in seven leading scientific journals that regularly publish animal studies (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Seventy-six out of 2,000 were highly cited with a median citation count of 889. Out of these 76 studies 28 were replicated in human randomized trials, 14 were contradicted, and 34 remained untested (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Only 1.4% of the animal studies published in high-impact journals were translated in human randomized trials (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) , whereas about 44% replication rate was reported for highly cited human studies (Ioannidis, 2005) . In pneumonia models, mammalians are mostly used because of their anatomical and physiological proximity to humans (Hraiech et al., 2015) . To monitor extensive physiological studies, larger mammalian species, including ferrets, dogs, rabbits, pigs, and baboons are the models of choice (Mizgerd and Skerrett, 2008) . However, rodents and in particular mice are used more frequently as a pneumonia model organisms. Rapid reproductive rate, small size, less complicated handling, the ability to reproduce and compare results with already published bacterial and viral mono-infections, detailed knowledge of genetics and immune responses, and a plethora of available reagents to study infections in mice are reasons for the use of these animals. To avoid variations in responses due to genetic diversity inbred mice strains are useful tools for studies aiming to elucidate molecular mechanisms of diseases. In addition, genetic engineering allowed to generate a wide variety of mouse variants with gainof-function, loss-of-function or reporter genes (Mizgerd and Skerrett, 2008) .
As outlined above, many in vivo mice studies on bacterial and viral co-infections provided useful insights into severe pneumonia, including (i) the fact that viral infection primes the host for bacterial susceptibility leading to severe secondary infection (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Shahangian et al., 2009; Chaussee et al., 2011; Nakamura et al., 2011) , (ii) pathogen synergism (Tsai et al., 1998; McCullers and Rehg, 2002; Garcia-Suarez Mdel et al., 2007; Gurel et al., 2013; Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015; Zahlten et al., 2015) , (iii) enhanced inflammatory response at the onset of infection (Korteweg and Gu, 2008; Durbin et al., 2013; Pothlichet et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) leading to increased alveolar damage followed by immune paralysis with defective clearance of microorganisms (Shinya et al., 2006; van Riel et al., 2007 van Riel et al., , 2010 , and (iv) host receptor availability for sustained bacterial infection (Louria et al., 1959; Plotkowski et al., 1993; Cundell and Tuomanen, 1994; Puchelle et al., 2006; Korteweg and Gu, 2008) . However, mouse models for bacterial and/or viral infections have several limitations. Most of the bacterial and viral species under study are human pathogens. In recent years it was also shown that host genetic variations and sex differences have an impact on predisposition, severity, and outcome of infection (Chella Krishnan et al., 2015 While C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice are characterized by a higher resistance, DBA/2 strains are more susceptible and permissive to bacterial and viral strains (Alymova et al., 2011; Chella Krishnan et al., 2015 . In addition, transmission of IAV and bacteria is inefficient in adult mice, thus requiring alternative animal models, including neonatal mice or ferrets (Diavatopoulos et al., 2010; McCullers et al., 2010) . IAV was shown to be essential for pneumococcal transmission from colonized mice to their naive littermates and the transmission occurred only when all mice were infected with IAV (Diavatopoulos et al., 2010) . et al., 2010) . Ferrets are naturally susceptible to IAV isolated from different species, including humans, birds, and swine (Thangavel and Bouvier, 2014) . The infection of ferrets with human seasonal IAV isolates results in an upper respiratory tract infection similar to human influenza infection (Tripp and Tompkins, 2009) . In contrast to mice, non-adapted human IAV can be used for the infection. Unfortunately, there are only few reports on bacterial and IAV co-infections in this model organism. A report by Sanford and Ramsay showed enhanced staphylococcal colonization of the upper respiratory tract in IAV infected animals as compared to non-infected, while no difference between both groups was observed in group B streptococcal infection (Sanford and Ramsay, 1987) . In contrast, Smith and Mc Cullers reported lack of establishment of staphylococcal infection even when ferrets were pre-infected with IAV (Smith and McCullers, 2014) . The biggest advantages of using ferrets as a model include (i) their susceptibility to nonadapted human pathogens, (ii) efficiency in transmitting IAV and bacteria from one individual to another, and (iii) presentation of the clinical signs of disease manifestation akin to human influenza infection. Unfortunately, their limited availability, complex husbandry, and limited accessibility to ferret-specific reagents makes this research difficult to perform (Bouvier and Lowen, 2010) .
In recent years, the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) was also used in pneumonia research. The physiology and anatomy of the guinea pig lung resembles to a certain extent the human lung and this model organism is often used in non-infectious lung diseases, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Canning and Chou, 2008) . In addition, its commercial availability, ease of husbandry, the ability to work with nonadapted pathogens and the efficiency of transmission are reasons for using this in vivo model (Bouvier and Lowen, 2010) . Guinea pigs are susceptible to human, avian, and swine influenza viruses. Although viral replication can be readily detected upon intranasal inoculation in the upper respiratory tract and the lungs, guinea pigs exhibit only minor clinical symptoms (Lowen et al., 2006; Gabbard et al., 2014) . However, the lung pathology of human IAV infected guinea pigs correlates with the clinical severity of human infection (Gabbard et al., 2014) . Transmission of pneumococci in guinea pigs is promoted by co-infection with Sendai virus (Saito et al., 1988) . Guinea pigs infected with pneumococci alone and cage-mated with non-treated contact animals transmitted the bacteria only in 7% of cases, while Sendai-virus infected, co-housed guinea pigs acquired pneumococcal infection in 83% of contacts (Saito et al., 1988) . Another study evaluated antibiotic efficacy in invasive pulmonary infection caused by penicillin resistant pneumococcus (Ponte et al., 1996) . Intratracheal instillation of 3 × 10 9 CFU of S. pneumoniae induced a fatal pneumonia and bacteremia in 85% of untreated animals within 46 h (Ponte et al., 1996) . As with ferrets, there is a paucity of data describing immune responses to pulmonary infectious agents. This is in parts due to the lack of species specific reagents, which is a disadvantage in using this model organism.
Recently, the cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) was reported to be susceptible to IAV. Nasal and pulmonary infection in adult inbred cotton rats did not require viral adaptation (Ottolini et al., 2005) . The infection led to increased breathing rates accompanied by weight loss and decreased body temperature. Replication of IAV was more extensive in nasal tissues than the lung, and persisted for six consecutive days. Tissue pathology included damage of bronchiolar epithelium and the animals developed pneumonia which persisted for nearly 3 weeks (Ottolini et al., 2005) . In bacteriological studies rats are more frequently used. There are numerous rat models investigating the impact of diabetes (Oliveira et al., 2016) , metabolic syndromes (Feng et al., 2015) , cirrhosis , pharmaco-kinetics and dynamics (Antonopoulou et al., 2015; Hoover et al., 2015) , intoxication (Davis et al., 1991) , immunization (Iinuma and Okinaga, 1989) , and general bacterial virulence factors (Shanley et al., 1996) on development of pneumococcal, streptococcal, and staphylococcal pneumonia and lung pathology. Unfortunately, there are only few studies on bacterial and viral co-infections in rats. The first was performed by Harford et al., 1946 (Harford et al., 1946 . The authors concluded that the secondary bacterial pneumonia does not convert the sub-lethal viral infection to a lethal outcome (Harford et al., 1946) . Another study on human respiratory syncytial virus and S. pneumoniae revealed that rats were easily colonized with pneumococci, but viral replication after subsequent infection was strain dependent. In addition, neither pneumococci nor the virus spread from the upper to the lower respiratory tract, and neither pathogen was transmitted to naive cage mates . Although rats share a lot of immune features with humans, including nitric oxide production by macrophages (Carsillo et al., 2009) , the biggest disadvantages are low animal availability, aggressiveness of the species, and the lack of specific reagents.
Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) are well known for their use in studying cardiovascular diseases, antibody production, and eye research. Rabbits were also employed to study pneumonia, although only a few models are available. Typical read-out parameters include survival, leukocyte infiltration of the lungs, lung pathology, and assessment of drug concentration in serum. One of the first studies on pneumococcal pneumonia in rabbits was performed in Kline and Winternitz (1913) . This study revealed that rabbits possess an active immunity if they have recovered from one attack of experimental pneumonia and they may subsequently resist repeated intra-tracheal dosages of pneumococci (Kline and Winternitz, 1913) . In 1926 an infection by inhalation of Type I pneumococci was established in rabbits (Stillman and Branch, 1926) . The bacteria infiltrated easily the lower respiratory tract and pneumococci which reached the lungs usually disappeared within hours and fatal septicemia appeared in some of the animals (Stillman and Branch, 1926) . Most recent rabbit models of pneumococcal and staphylococcal pneumonia are based on intra-bronchial or intra-pulmonary infections which make them useful for pathogenesis (Diep et al., 2010 (Diep et al., , 2017 , as well as drug efficiency and efficacy studies (Cabellos et al., 1992; Croisier-Bertin et al., 2011) . However, this infection route requires surgery and species-specific reagents are scarce. In IAV research rabbits are frequently used for antibody production and for studies on antibody kinetics following single or multiple IAV administrations (Loza-Tulimowska et al., 1977) . Also, rabbits are used for safety investigations of vaccines (e.g., CoVaccine HT or Aflunov) (Heldens et al., 2010; Gasparini et al., 2012) . In recent years the shedding of avian IAV by cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.) was investigated revealing that nasally and orally inoculated cottontails shed relatively large quantities of viral RNA (Root et al., 2014) . Notably, low viral titers were found to be sufficient to initiate viral replication in cottontails (Root et al., 2017) . However, despite their susceptibility to IAV infection, rabbits are only rarely used as model for IAV pathogenesis since they offer no improvement over other established infection models.
Macaques represent the major non-human primate for studying infectious diseases. They are omnivorous and adaptable. The species most commonly used are rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) and cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fasciluraris).
Although it was shown early that macaques were susceptible to IAV (Saslaw et al., 1946) , the animal models of choice remained ferrets and mice. Recently, macaques have been used to compare the pathogenesis of highly virulent 1918 pandemic IAV and the pathogenic bird flu strain (H5N1) with a conventional H1N1 strain (Rimmelzwaan et al., 2001) . Cynomolgus macaques infected with highly pathogenic H5N1 developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, fever, and necrotizing pneumonia (Rimmelzwaan et al., 2001) . The 1918 IAV strain induced dysregulation of the antiviral response leading to insufficient protection of the host, which in turn resulted in acute respiratory distress and a fatal outcome (Kobasa et al., 2007) . The 2009 pandemic H1N1 US isolate caused severe pathological lesions in the lungs of the macaques (Itoh et al., 2009 ). The three studies mentioned above used combined intratracheal delivery of high doses of virus. A recent study by Marriott et al. analyzed the outcome of challenge routes, including inhaled aerosol and intra-nasal instillation with low to moderate doses of H1N1 in cynomolgus macaques (Marriott et al., 2016) . Virus replication was detected in all challenge groups, although the disease remained sub-clinical.
In bacteriological studies non-human primates are rarely used. For group A streptococcal infection longitudinal transcriptome analyses were performed in experimental pharyngitis (Virtaneva et al., 2005) and lower respiratory tract infection in cynomolgus macaques (Olsen et al., 2010a) . The lower respiratory tract disease observed in macaques after GAS infection mimicked the clinical and pathological features of severe bronchopneumonia in humans (Olsen et al., 2010a) . Another study by Olsen and colleagues analyzed the contribution of PVL of a highly virulent USA300 S. aureus strain in respiratory infection (Olsen et al., 2010b) . Although the lower respiratory tract disease observed in monkey mimicked the clinical and pathological features of early mild to moderate pneumonia in humans, no involvement of PVL in lung pathology or immune cell influx of the lungs could be detected (Olsen et al., 2010b) . The same research group has developed a non-lethal IAV (H3N2)-S. aureus co-infection model in cynomolgus macaques (Kobayashi et al., 2013) . Pneumonia progression was monitored by clinical parameters assessment, blood chemistry, nasal swabs, and pathology of the lungs. Seasonal IAV infection in healthy cynomolgus macaques caused mild pneumonia, but did not predispose the animals to subsequent severe infection with the USA300 clone (Kobayashi et al., 2013) .
Although macaques are frequently used for evaluation of pneumococcal vaccine efficacy, including testing the impact of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine on antigen-specific memory B cell repertoires (Jia et al., 2017) , only two studies on pneumococcal carriage and pneumonia were conducted in the last decade. In 2013, Philipp and colleagues analyzed the carriage rate of pneumococcus in 158 colony animals. None of the surveyed rhesus macaques carried S. pneumoniae in the nasopharynx (Philipp et al., 2012) . The authors concluded that rhesus macaque is probably not a natural host of pneumococci. But, when infants were colonized with 19F strain via nasopharyngeal instillation, the colonization was induced in eight of eight infants, lasted for 2 weeks in all animals and for 7 weeks in more than 60% (Philipp et al., 2012) . The same group tested detoxified pneumolysin (dPly) and pneumococcal histidine triad protein D (PhtD) as potential vaccine candidates to prevent pneumonia (Denoel et al., 2011) . After immunization the rhesus macaques were challenged with a 19F pneumococcal strain. AS02-adjuvanted PhtD-dPly vaccine protected the animals against S. pneumoniae-induced pneumonia, which was linked to the capacity (i) to greatly reduce bacterial load within the first week post-challenge and (ii) the levels of PhtD-and Ply-specific antibodies (Denoel et al., 2011) . Although only a few macaque studies on pneumonia exist, due to the close proximity to humans in terms of physiology and immunity, these animals can be a good model in the context of translational studies evaluating therapeutics and prophylaxis.
Despite the wide use of different animal models, the optimal in vivo model for human pneumonia remains to be identified. Small mammals including rodents are well known from a biological, genetic, and immunological point of view and are easy to maintain. The choice of these particular animals for infectious disease studies is often a result of a compromise between technical and financial options. However, they are also far from humans' anatomy, physiology, immunology, and susceptibility to exclusively human pathogens. The experimental animal model should be chosen based on responses comparable to humans. Primates are usually legally reserved to specific topics. In this case, pigs could be an appropriate model system for studying infectious diseases including pneumonia (Figure 1) . The composition and size of the porcine genome is comparable to that of humans (Hart et al., 2007) . In addition, human and porcine organs have many common features and functions (Swindle et al., 2012) . The upper respiratory tract of humans and pigs, including the lymphoid tissue in the nasopharynx, is anatomically similar. Furthermore, like humans, pigs possess tonsils, which are absent in mice (Horter et al., 2003) . A major advantage of studying infectious diseases by utilizing pigs as a host organism is that pigs have a full set of innate and adaptive immune effectors. According to whole genome sequencing results the porcine immune system resembles over 80% of the human immune system, whereas mice share less than 10% with humans (Dawson et al., 2016) . Most of the immune cell compartments identified in humans are also present in pigs (Piriou-Guzylack and Salmon, 2008; Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In contrast to mice and similar to humans, pigs have 50-70% of circulating polymorph nuclear cells (Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In addition, all functional cytokines or orthologs involved in Th1, Th2, Th17, and Treg paradigm and corresponding immune cells have been described in pigs (Murtaugh et al., 2009; Kaser et al., 2011; Kiros et al., 2011) . Especially the very prominent human pro-inflammatory chemo-attractant, CXCL8, is present as an ortholog in pigs, whereas there is no homologue in mice (Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In contrast to human monocytes, which can be divided in three subclasses (classical CD14 + CD16 − , nonclassical CD14 + CD16 + , and intermediate CD14 ++ CD16 + ), porcine monocytes consist of four subclasses (Chamorro et al., 2005; Fairbairn et al., 2013) . Like human monocytes they express adhesion molecules, such as VLA-4 and LFA-1 and costimulatory molecules, including CD80 and CD86 (Chamorro et al., 2005) .
The pig has previously been used to mimic a number of human infectious diseases. Examples for S. aureus infections with this model organism are wound infections Svedman et al., 1989) , osteomyelitis (Jensen et al., 2010) , and sepsis (Nielsen et al., 2009) . Intravenous inoculation of piglets with pneumococci led to bacteremia during a 5 days period and was associated with fever and septic arthritis. Intranasal inoculation of piglets led to colonization for at least six consecutive days without causing clinical signs (De Greeff et al., 2016) . In addition, research on respiratory infections of pigs by human pathogens including S. aureus (Luna et al., 2009) , Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Gil et al., 2010) , Bordetella pertussis (Elahi et al., 2007) , Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Luna et al., 2009) , and IAV (Khatri et al., 2010) , was performed in recent years. The fact that pigs and humans are infected with identical subtypes of IAV (H1N1, H3N2), and show similar clinical presentation and pathogenesis, makes pigs an ideal model organism for studies on respiratory co-infections (Van Reeth et al., 1998) . Especially IAV infections are already well established in swine (Van Reeth et al., 1998 , 2002a Jung et al., 2007; Khatri et al., 2010; Barbe et al., 2011) .
In addition to the limited number of publications on pigs and human pathogens, a lot can be translated and learned from studies on the porcine zoonotic pathogen Streptococcus suis. S. suis usually inhabits mucosal surfaces of tonsils, nares, genital and alimentary tract of piglets. Once the microbial balance is disturbed, the bacteria can cause meningitis, septicemia, arthritis, and pneumonia in pigs (Staats et al., 1997) . Some S. suis strains are considered to be hyper-virulent and others hypo-or avirulent. In general, serotype 2 is most frequently isolated from diseased pigs (Staats et al., 1997) . S. suis can also cause severe diseases in humans including septicemia, meningitis, arthritis, and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (Tang et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2006; Gottschalk et al., 2007) . Although many in vivo studies on S. suis have been performed by utilizing mice as a model organism (Seitz et al., 2012; Auger et al., 2016) , several other studies have shown the advantage of using swine as a natural host for S. suis (Bi et al., 2014; Ferrando et al., 2015) . A recent publication by Lin and colleagues on H1N1 and S. suis co-infected piglets demonstrated the synergistic effects of both pathogens (Lin et al., 2015) . Co-infected piglets had more severe clinical presentation and pathological changes in the lung, as compared to animals infected with single pathogens (Lin et al., 2015) . In addition, genes associated with immune responses, inflammatory cytokine production, and apoptotic pathways were highly overexpressed in the coinfected group (Lin et al., 2015) . Although the porcine model seems to be ideal to mimic human infectious diseases, there are also disadvantages, including, e.g., requirement for specialized experimental animal facilities, time consuming management, high maintenance costs, and limited availability of transgenic animals.
Although the use of animals contributes greatly to our understanding of infectious diseases, human 3D-organotypic tissue models and ex vivo organ tissues should be considered, as they are most valuable tools to study host-pathogen interactions in a more complex setting (Figure 1) . Tissue engineering approaches were originally focused on regenerative medicine (Langer and Vacanti, 1993) . In contrast to standard monolayer cell cultures, tissue models much more closely resemble the 3D architecture, cellular composition, and matrix complexity of the respective organ. In recent years tissue engineering was also successfully employed in a number of studies in infectious diseases, including Zika virus infections of cerebral organoids (Lancaster et al., 2013; Dang et al., 2016) , Helicobacter pylori infections of gastric epithelial organoids (McCracken et al., 2014; Schlaermann et al., 2016) , Escherichia coli and Rotavirus infections of gastrointestinal and small intestinal enteroids (Saxena et al., 2015; VanDussen et al., 2015) , Entamoeba histolytica or Hepatitis B virus infections of hepatic sinusoid tissue (Petropolis et al., 2014 (Petropolis et al., , 2016 , group A and G streptococcal or staphylococcal infections of skin tissue models Mairpady Shambat et al., 2016) , and staphylococcal and Andes hantavirus infections of human lung tissue (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015; Sundstrom et al., 2016) . The adaptability of these tissue-engineered models to multiple pathogens suggests a great potential for studies of infectious diseases. For instance, the lung tissue model relevant for pneumonia consists of lung fibroblasts embedded in a collagen matrix with a stratified epithelial layer on top (Nguyen Hoang et al., 2012) . The engineered tissue is suitable for implanting and studying immune cells, including dendritic cells, monocytes, macrophages, and even peripheral blood mononuclear cells (Nguyen Hoang et al., 2012; Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . A recent publication demonstrated a two-hit-event of lung pathology in staphylococcal necrotizing pneumonia (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . While the α-toxin had direct damaging effect on the lung epithelium, PVL induced lung pathology indirectly through the lysis of neutrophils (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . All the studies mentioned above highlight a significant progress in the field of infectious diseases not only from a scientific point of view but also by contributing to the three R principle of animal experimentation (Russell, 1995) .
On these terms, the use of cultured ex vivo human organ biopsies, which are rare due to ethical considerations, is an additional option to study host-pathogen interactions. This ex vivo system may overcome even the limitations of the engineered tissue. In recent years human ex vivo lung tissue infections with various microorganisms, including pneumococci (Szymanski et al., 2012; Fatykhova et al., 2015) , Bacillus anthracis (Chakrabarty et al., 2007) , Haemophilus influenzae (Zhang et al., 2016) , and IAV (Nicholls et al., 2007; Chan et al., 2009) , were performed. In the human setting, most of the work focused on tropism, severity of infections, release of inflammatory mediators, and replication rates of the microorganisms. In addition, recently also experiments on swine influenza virus (SIV) and S. suis co-infections of the porcine ex vivo lung slices were reported. Meng and colleagues showed that SIV promotes subsequent bacterial infections in a two-step process of which the first initial step was dependent on capsule expression, whereas the second step of bacterial invasion into deeper layers was capsuleindependent and required virus-mediated damage (Meng et al., 2015) . However, this is just a beginning and more investigations are needed to unravel the complexity underlying these highly invasive infections.
In summary, bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract are highly lethal and present a dramatic burden for the global health system. The synergy between bacterial and viral infectious agents is related to a variety of factors, including epithelial barrier damage, exaggerated innate immune response, and cytokine storm. Despite many advances in recent years, more knowledge on mechanisms and immunology of disease progression is needed. The synergistic mechanisms between viruses and bacteria leading to enhanced morbidity and mortality are poorly understood. In vivo characterizations of these severe infections are mainly performed in mice which poorly resemble the human physiology and immune system. Several efforts have been made to establish other models, including ferrets, guinea pigs, rabbits, rats, and non-human primates. However, all have limitations. Here, we suggest using the porcine model, which provides obvious advantages in studies of human infectious diseases and should be considered much more frequent for future studies on severe infectious diseases, including pneumonia. | What percentage of healthy adults are asymptotically colonized by pneumococcus bacteria? | 5,176 | 8-30% | 11,515 |
1,664 | Port d’Entrée for Respiratory Infections – Does the Influenza A Virus Pave the Way for Bacteria?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5742597/
SHA: ee0050c6fb81a4067d134010d0c80d21edb5df0b
Authors: Siemens, Nikolai; Oehmcke-Hecht, Sonja; Mettenleiter, Thomas C.; Kreikemeyer, Bernd; Valentin-Weigand, Peter; Hammerschmidt, Sven
Date: 2017-12-21
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02602
License: cc-by
Abstract: Bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract are life-threatening and present a global burden to the global community. Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus pyogenes are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract. Imbalances through acquisition of seasonal viruses, e.g., Influenza A virus, can lead to bacterial dissemination to the lower respiratory tract, which in turn can result in severe pneumonia. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract and focus on potential experimental models suitable for mimicking this disease. Transmission of IAV and pneumonia is mainly modeled by mouse infection. Few studies utilizing ferrets, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and non-human primates are also available. The knowledge gained from these studies led to important discoveries and advances in understanding these infectious diseases. Nevertheless, mouse and other infection models have limitations, especially in translation of the discoveries to humans. Here, we suggest the use of human engineered lung tissue, human ex vivo lung tissue, and porcine models to study respiratory co-infections, which might contribute to a greater translation of the results to humans and improve both, animal and human health.
Text: In recent years the human microbiota is more and more recognized to play a crucial role in pathogenesis of many diseases (Weinstock, 2012) . The upper respiratory tract is a natural niche for potentially pathogenic bacteria embedded in commensal communities forming the nasopharyngeal microbiome. In particular, the microbial communities of the nasopharynx (Hilty et al., 2012) are associated with respiratory diseases, i.e., severe pneumonia, which are responsible for substantial mortality and morbidity in humans worldwide (Prina et al., 2016) . The composition of the nasopharyngeal microbiome is highly dynamic (Biesbroek et al., 2014a,b,c) and many factors, including environmental and host factors, can affect microbial colonization (Koppen et al., 2015) . Recent studies on neonates have shown that the respiratory microbiota develops from initially maternally transmitted mixed flora with predominance of Streptococcus viridans species to niche-specific bacterial profiles containing mostly Staphylococcus aureus at around 1 week of age (Bosch et al., 2016a) . Between 2 weeks and 6 months after birth, the staphylococcal predominance declines and colonization with Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococci) as a predominant pathobiont emerges (Miller et al., 2011; Bosch et al., 2016a,b) . The dynamic microbiome composition is guaranteed through the interplay between bacterial species, other microbes, and changing environmental conditions, as well as host-bacteria interactions (Blaser and Falkow, 2009 ). Most of the time, the microbiome and its interplay with the human host are believed to be beneficial for both (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Murphy et al., 2009 ). However, imbalances in microbial composition can lead to acquisition of new viral or bacterial species and invasion of potential pathogens, which in turn can become detrimental, especially in elderly people and children with an exhausted or immature immune system (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Blaser and Falkow, 2009; Murphy et al., 2009) .
One particular example showing imbalances introduced by single dosage of antibiotics was demonstrated by Ichinohe and colleagues (Ichinohe et al., 2011) . While commensal respiratory microbiota facilitated immune-support against Influenza A virus infection (IAV), oral treatment with antibiotics resulted not only in a shift of bacterial composition, but also in impaired CD4 T-, CD8 T-, and B-cell immunity following infection with IAV in mice (Ichinohe et al., 2011) . Analyses of human oropharyngeal microbiomes during the 2009 H1N1 IAV pandemic revealed that at the phylum level, the abundance of Fermicutes and Proteobacteria was augmented in pneumonia patients as compared to healthy controls (Leung et al., 2013) . However, another study published in the same year contradicted these results (Chaban et al., 2013) . Chaban and colleagues analyzed microbiomes of 65 patients from H1N1 IAV outbreak in 2009. Although the phylogenetic composition of pneumonia patients was dominated by Fermicutes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria, no significant differences between the patients and healthy controls or any other variables tested, including age and gender, were observed (Chaban et al., 2013) .
In this review we discuss secondary bacterial infections of the respiratory tract after primary infection by IAV with a focus on mechanisms by which these interactions are potentially mediated, and we will provide insight into the host contribution and immunological consequences. We further focus on potential animal models suitable for mimicking asymptomatic bacterial colonization and disease progression and thus, enabling to study adaptation strategies, viral-bacterial interactions, and immune responses in these highly lethal co-infections.
Influenza A viruses belong to the family of Orthomyxoviridae and based on the antigenicity of their haemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) they are classified into 16 classical HA and 9 classical NA subtypes (Neumann et al., 2009) . The 8-segmented genomes of influenza A viruses are characterized by a significant plasticity. Due to point mutations and re-assortment events new variants or strains with epidemic or pandemic potential emerge (Neumann et al., 2009 ). In addition, influenza can be transmitted between animals, including swine, birds, horses, and humans, making it a zoonotic disease (van der Meer et al., 2010) . Seasonal influenza usually resolves without consequences in healthy individuals. However, it is estimated that seasonal influenza effects 5-10% of the world's population resulting in about 250,000 to 500,000 deaths annually (Tjon-Kon-Fat et al., 2016) . At greater risk to develop secondary bacterial pneumonia are individuals with comorbidities, elderly people (age > 65), pregnant women, and children under the age of one (Rothberg et al., 2008) .
For a long time it was considered that the H1N1 strain, an avian-like H1N1 virus, directly caused most of the fatalities during the 1918-1919 pandemic (Spanish Flu), often from a hemorrhagic pneumonitis rapidly progressing to acute respiratory distress syndrome and death (Osterholm, 2005; Gerberding, 2006; Oxford et al., 2006) . The pandemic killed around 50 million people worldwide and remains unique in its severity compared to other big outbreaks. However, many of the findings have been reinterpreted in recent years (Brundage and Shanks, 2007; Chien et al., 2009) . It is estimated that around 95% of all severe cases and deaths were attributed to secondary infections with bacterial pathogens, most predominantly by Streptococcus pneumoniae (Morens et al., 2008) . Individual studies limited to certain regions identified also other pathogens commonly colonizing the respiratory tract, including Staphylococcus aureus, group A streptococcus (GAS) and Haemophilus influenzae (Brundage and Shanks, 2008) . During the next two pandemics (H2N2 Asian Flu 1957 and H3N2 Hong Kong Flu 1968 −1969 bacterial co-infections were less likely the cause of death compared to the Spanish Flu (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957; Trotter et al., 1959) . Still, pneumonia accounted for about 44% of deaths during the Asian Flu (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957) . Most fatalities resulting from pneumonia occurred in individuals with chronic conditions, i.e., chronic lung diseases, rheumatic carditis, and hypertension (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957) . In 1957-1958, S. aureus was predominantly isolated from fatal pneumonia cases (Hers et al., 1957 (Hers et al., , 1958 Robertson et al., 1958; Martin et al., 1959) , whereas S. pneumoniae returned as predominant cause of severe pneumonia during the Hong Kong Flu (Sharrar, 1969; Bisno et al., 1971; Burk et al., 1971; Schwarzmann et al., 1971) . Forty years later in 2009, a novel H1N1 virus of swine origin emerged and caused again a pandemic (Dawood et al., 2009 (Dawood et al., , 2012 . In contrast to Asian and Hong Kong Flu, mortality rates were rather low, but most deaths occurred in healthy young individuals with no underlying conditions (Reichert et al., 2010; Monsalvo et al., 2011; Dawood et al., 2012) . About 25-50% of severe or fatal cases were linked to complications due to bacterial pneumonia (Dominguez-Cherit et al., 2009; Estenssoro et al., 2010; Mauad et al., 2010; Shieh et al., 2010 ). Although regional variations occurred, pneumococci and S. aureus were the most frequently isolated bacterial species (Mauad et al., 2010; Shieh et al., 2010; Rice et al., 2012) . Group A streptococcus was absent in many local pneumonia outbreaks associated with viruses, but was predominant in others (Brundage and Shanks, 2008; Ampofo et al., 2010) . When it does appear, it is typically third in incidence (Chaussee et al., 2011) . Overall, data on pandemic outbreaks suggest that disease severity and mortality can be linked to secondary bacterial pathogens with variations depending on regions and state of immunity of the population (Brundage and Shanks, 2008; Shanks et al., 2010 Shanks et al., , 2011 McCullers, 2013) .
There is increasing evidence that the nasopharyngeal microbiota plays an important role in the pathogenesis of acute viral respiratory infections (Teo et al., 2015; de Steenhuijsen Piters et al., 2016; Rosas-Salazar et al., 2016a,b) . Respiratory viruses, including IAV, have been shown to alter bacterial adherence and colonization leading to an increased risk of secondary bacterial infections (Tregoning and Schwarze, 2010) . Pneumococci, S. aureus, and GAS are important human Gram-positive pathogens. All of them are frequent colonizers of the human nasopharynx and they share many features including pathogenic mechanisms and clinical aspects (Figure 1) . However, they also have unique properties.
Staphylococcus aureus colonizes persistently about 30% of the human population and typical niches include nares, axillae, and skin (Peacock et al., 2001; von Eiff et al., 2001; van Belkum et al., 2009) . They cause a variety of clinical manifestations ranging from mild skin infections to fatal necrotizing pneumonia. In the last decades, the pathogen became resistant to an increasing number of antibiotics and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is now a major cause of hospital acquired infections (Hartman and Tomasz, 1984; Ubukata et al., 1989; Zetola et al., 2005) . Also the rise of community-acquired S. aureus strains is of special concern, because certain clones are associated with very severe infections (Rasigade et al., 2010) . Recent prospective studies demonstrated an increase in proportion of communityacquired methicillin-sensitive S. aureus in severe pneumonia cases (McCaskill et al., 2007; Sicot et al., 2013) .
The pneumococcus is a typical colonizer of the human nasopharynx. About 20-50% of healthy children and 8-30% of healthy adults are asymptomatically colonized (McCullers, 2006) . Pneumococci cause diseases ranging from mild, i.e., sinusitis, conjunctivitis, and otitis media, to more severe and potentially life-threatening infections, including communityacquired pneumonia, bacteraemia, and meningitis (Bogaert et al., 2004; Valles et al., 2016) . This bacterium is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates in risk groups such as immunocompromised individuals, children, and elderly (Black et al., 2010; Valles et al., 2016) .
Group A streptococci colonize the mouth and upper respiratory tract in about 2-5% of world's population (Okumura and Nizet, 2014) . The most common, non-invasive and mild infections caused by GAS are tonsillitis and pharyngitis with estimated 600 million cases per year (Carapetis et al., 2005) .
Listed as number nine in the list of global killers with around 500,000 deaths annually (Carapetis et al., 2005) , it is obvious that this pathogen can cause severe invasive infections, including pneumonia, sepsis, streptococcal toxic shock syndrome, and necrotizing skin infections (Cunningham, 2000; Carapetis et al., 2005) .
Although all three pathogens are able to cause highly lethal diseases, the most fatal remains the pneumococcus, estimated to cause ca. 10% of all deaths in children below 5 years of age (O'Brien et al., 2009) , in the elderly (Marrie et al., 2017) , and in immuno-compromised individuals (Baxter et al., 2016) .
Influenza A virus binds via HA to either α2,3or α2,6-linked sialic acid at the surface of epithelial cells of the upper and lower respiratory tract (Webster et al., 1992) . Seasonal strains show usually affinity to α2,6-linked sialic acids that are expressed in the human trachea, whereas avian-like viruses preferentially bind to α2,3-linked sialic acids of alveolar type II cells (Shinya et al., 2006; van Riel et al., 2007 van Riel et al., , 2010 . The release of viral genomic RNA into the cytosol activates different immune response pathways. Binding of viral RNA to retinoic acid inducible gene 1 induces the expression of type I and III interferons and activates transcription factor NF-κB, which in turn activates the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines (Durbin et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) . In addition, inflammasome activation leads to the release of IL-1β and IL-18 (Pothlichet et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) . All these responses are supposed to promote viral clearance. However, the presence of viral proteins during infection induces also direct activation of the intrinsic or indirectly the activation of the extrinsic apoptotic pathway via production of inflammatory cytokines, resulting in apoptosis or even necrosis of the epithelium (Korteweg and Gu, 2008) . Furthermore, aberrant coagulation induced by virus infection causes a hyper-inflammatory response (Yang and Tang, 2016) . All these events contribute to lung tissue injury (Imai et al., 2008; Davidson et al., 2014) . The epithelial damage due to viral replication provides a beneficial environment for initial bacterial attachment (Plotkowski et al., 1993) . On the other hand, already colonized bacteria might enhance influenza virus virulence either by directly secreting proteases that cleave and activate HA (Figure 2 ) (Bottcher-Friebertshauser et al., 2013) or, indirectly, by activating host proteases such as plasminogen, which increases replication rates and infectivity of the virus (Scheiblauer et al., 1992; Tse and Whittaker, 2015) .
Potentially pathogenic bacteria, including the three species mentioned above, express an arsenal of virulence factors responsible for attachment to human host structures. Microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules FIGURE 1 | Potential models to study bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract. S. pneumoniae, S. aureus, S. pyogenes, and S. suis are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract. Seasonal IAV infection can lead to an increased risk of secondary bacterial infections, i.e., pneumonia. Several experimental models can be used for studying these severe infections. Patient samples, including ex vivo lung tissue are materials of choice, but they are rare due to ethical considerations. Tissue engineering approaches closely resemble the 3D architecture, cellular composition, and matrix complexity of the respective organ and were proven as useful tool to study infectious diseases. In vivo bacterial and viral co-infections are mainly performed in mice, which does not necessarily resemble the human physiology and immune system. Thus, we suggest using the porcine model, which nearly resembles over 80% of the human immune system.
(MSCRAMMs), such as PspC, PspA, and PsaA in pneumococci (Hammerschmidt, 2006) , SPA, FnbA, ClfA, and ClfB in S. aureus (Bartlett and Hulten, 2010; Otto, 2010) , and M-protein, PrtF1, and PrtF2 in GAS (Cunningham, 2000) , respectively, and socalled moon-lightning proteins expressed by all three species, e.g., GAPDH, enolase or PGK (Fulde et al., 2013) , enable the bacteria to attach to damaged cells or molecules of the extracellular matrix, including fibronectin, fibrin, fibrinogen, and collagens, or fibrinolytic proteins like plasminogen (McCullers and Rehg, 2002; Bergmann and Hammerschmidt, 2007; Linke et al., 2012; Siemens et al., 2012; Voss et al., 2012) . Once the initial attachment occurs, bacterial cytotoxins including pneumolysin of pneumococci (Garcia-Suarez Mdel et al., 2007; Zahlten et al., 2015) , α-hemolysin and leukocidins of S. aureus (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) , and Streptolysins S and O and Streptococcal pyrogenic exotoxin B of S. pyogenes (Tsai et al., 1998; Gurel et al., 2013; Siemens et al., 2015 Siemens et al., , 2016 , can synergize with viral counterparts to further increase lung tissue pathology. Additional potential mechanisms by which the initial colonization of the lower respiratory tract and lung tissue damage might occur include potentiation of the development of pneumonia by IAV neuraminidase through enzymatic removal of sialic acid from the lung, thus exposing host receptors for pneumococcal adherence (McCullers and Bartmess, 2003) . The host inflammatory state in response to viral infection can alter presentation of receptors on the surface, thus allowing bacterial invasion (Cundell and Tuomanen, 1994) . As the patient begins to recover from viral infection, secondary bacterial infections might occur (Louria et al., 1959) due to the incomplete wound healing and exposure of host membrane components, including laminin, collagens type I and IV to classical bacterial MSCRAMMs (Louria et al., 1959; Puchelle et al., 2006) .
Epithelial cells are the first responders to infections in the lung, followed by the tissue resident alveolar macrophages. They promote viral clearance via phagocytosis, efferocytosis, and release of cytokines and chemokines to promote immune responses (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Kumagai et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2012; Hillaire et al., 2013) . Respiratory viruses like IAV are able to induce suppression and killing of the resident alveolar macrophages (Figure 2 ) (Ghoneim et al., 2013) . These cells are usually replaced by differentiation of recruited blood derived monocytes into macrophages of different polarization patterns. This in turn creates a delay in pathogen clearance and opens a window for host susceptibility to secondary bacterial infections, colloquially named superinfections (Ghoneim et al., 2013) . In addition, induction of interferons as a response to viral infection compromises the immune sensing of Gram-positive bacteria by neutrophils and macrophages, which would normally clear the bacteria from the lungs (Figure 2 ) (Sun and Metzger, 2008; Tian et al., 2012) . The exact mechanism underlying this phenomenon is still not understood. Several studies suggested that viral RNA activates Toll-like receptors (TLR) 2 and TLR4 and, consequently, the production of type I interferons to promote an antiviral state (Shahangian et al., 2009) . The subsequent infection with Gram-positive bacteria, e.g., pneumococci, enhances the type I interferon expression, which in turn suppresses production of the CCL2 chemokine and recruitment of macrophages (Nakamura Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org FIGURE 2 | The interplay between IAV, bacteria, and the human host. The epithelial damage due to viral replication provides a beneficial environment for bacterial (Bact.) attachment. IAV is able to induce suppression and killing of resident alveolar macrophages (AM), which in turn delays viral clearance. The release of viral RNA activates different immune response pathways resulting in cytokine storm. Type I and III interferons compromise the immune recognition of Gram-positive bacteria by neutrophils and macrophages. In addition, they might suppress natural killer cell function (NK), including release of TNF, which activates alveolar macrophages. After initial inflammation, the situation might worsen due to cellular infiltration of the lungs by neutrophils (PMN), leading to an increased degranulation and tissue damage by effector molecules, including heparin-binding protein (HBP). et al., 2011). Another study by Shahangian et al. (2009) revealed that the antiviral state leads to impaired production of neutrophil chemoattractants CXCL1 and CXCL2, which in turn promotes less effective immune responses due to attenuated neutrophil functions during the early phase of pneumococcal invasion. Other studies found that IAV exposed lungs had impaired natural killer (NK) cell responses in the airway to subsequent S. aureus infection (Small et al., 2010) . Reduced TNFα production by NK cells was identified as a crucial upstream mechanism of depressed antimicrobial activities by alveolar macrophages (Figure 2 ) (Small et al., 2010) . It seems likely that IAV NA is also able to activate host cell receptors in a TGF-β dependent manner, which in turn promotes GAS invasion and subsequent lung pathology (Li et al., 2015) . In vitro studies on the interplay between IAV-pneumococci and human dendritic cells revealed TLR3 as a crucial sensor of viral and bacterial RNA leading to enhanced IL-12p70 production, which in turn might promote an anti-viral state by upregulation of interferons (Yamamoto et al., 2004; Spelmink et al., 2016) . However, it should be noted that depending on the bacterial species the disease manifestation and underlying innate immune responses might vary (Sharma-Chawla et al., 2016) .
A lot of the experimental studies on disease mechanisms and immune responses are based on a subsequent bacterial infection within hours or a few days post IAV infection. However, bacterial infiltrations of the lungs might occur much later, i.e., during the onset of wound healing after partial clearance of IAV, which has been reported in most studies performed in recent years (Snelgrove et al., 2008; Hussell and Cavanagh, 2009 ). These processes are characterized by a general anti-inflammatory state and suppression of mechanisms involved in pathogen clearance due to increased interleukin-10 production (van der Sluijs et al., 2004; Metzger and Sun, 2013) . The anti-inflammatory state suppresses the expression of pattern recognition receptors (PRR) on professional phagocytes leading to impaired phagocytosis and killing of microbes. These events might allow bacterial overgrowth in the lungs and tissue pathology (Sun and Metzger, 2008; Goulding et al., 2011) .
Like other severe infectious diseases caused by single agents, pneumonia is characterized by hyper-inflammatory conditions of the lungs at the onset of infection followed by a hypoinflammatory state with immune paralysis (Morton et al., 2014) . In co-infections, after initial inflammation in response to viral infection the situation might worsen due to bacterial invasion and enhanced cellular infiltration of the lungs by neutrophils, leading to an increased tissue damage and cytokine storm (Figure 2 ) (Conenello et al., 2007; McAuley et al., 2007 McAuley et al., , 2010 Porto and Stein, 2016) . Furthermore, the coagulation system becomes activated and contributes to the pathophysiological response to infection (van der Poll and Herwald, 2014). Bacteria like pneumococci, S. aureus, and GAS can activate and modulate the coagulation system, leading to extensive expression of tissue factor and increasing the risk of severe coagulopathy Shannon et al., 2013; Walters et al., 2016) .
Bacterial pathogens also express a variety of cytolytic toxins that can contribute to inflammation and tissue pathology. Pneumolysin, a pneumococcal pore-forming toxin with low affinity to lung epithelial cells, can damage neutrophils by utilizing P2X7 receptor (Domon et al., 2016) . Staphylococcal cytotoxins (α-toxin and leukocidins, including Panton-Valentine leucocidin, PVL) are associated with severe tissue pathology, strong upregulation of chemokines, and increased neutrophil influx of the lungs (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . GAS toxins, including SLO and SpeB, are capable of directly causing tissue damage and promoting pro-inflammatory states through neutrophil lysis (Snall et al., 2016; Uhlmann et al., 2016) . The cytolytic effects caused by bacterial toxins might synergize with the outcome of IAV cytotoxic accessory protein, PB1-F2, mediated tissue pathology leading to enhanced cytokine production (Ramos and Fernandez-Sesma, 2012) . Taken together, most likely synergistic effects of the pathways that are involved in bacterial and viral inflammation lead to enhanced immune activation and higher morbidity and mortality (Joyce et al., 2009; Koppe et al., 2012; Ramos and Fernandez-Sesma, 2012; Bucasas et al., 2013; Kuri et al., 2013) . Figure 2 summarizes the interplay between virus, bacteria, and host.
Experimental animal models are a useful tool to study in vivo effects of different infectious agents and they represent approximately 3% of all pneumonia research published in peerreview journals (Hraiech et al., 2015) . However, the constant increase of animal studies in the last decades is in contrast to their reproducibility in humans (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Hackam and colleagues identified 2,000 articles published between 1980 and 2006 in seven leading scientific journals that regularly publish animal studies (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Seventy-six out of 2,000 were highly cited with a median citation count of 889. Out of these 76 studies 28 were replicated in human randomized trials, 14 were contradicted, and 34 remained untested (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Only 1.4% of the animal studies published in high-impact journals were translated in human randomized trials (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) , whereas about 44% replication rate was reported for highly cited human studies (Ioannidis, 2005) . In pneumonia models, mammalians are mostly used because of their anatomical and physiological proximity to humans (Hraiech et al., 2015) . To monitor extensive physiological studies, larger mammalian species, including ferrets, dogs, rabbits, pigs, and baboons are the models of choice (Mizgerd and Skerrett, 2008) . However, rodents and in particular mice are used more frequently as a pneumonia model organisms. Rapid reproductive rate, small size, less complicated handling, the ability to reproduce and compare results with already published bacterial and viral mono-infections, detailed knowledge of genetics and immune responses, and a plethora of available reagents to study infections in mice are reasons for the use of these animals. To avoid variations in responses due to genetic diversity inbred mice strains are useful tools for studies aiming to elucidate molecular mechanisms of diseases. In addition, genetic engineering allowed to generate a wide variety of mouse variants with gainof-function, loss-of-function or reporter genes (Mizgerd and Skerrett, 2008) .
As outlined above, many in vivo mice studies on bacterial and viral co-infections provided useful insights into severe pneumonia, including (i) the fact that viral infection primes the host for bacterial susceptibility leading to severe secondary infection (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Shahangian et al., 2009; Chaussee et al., 2011; Nakamura et al., 2011) , (ii) pathogen synergism (Tsai et al., 1998; McCullers and Rehg, 2002; Garcia-Suarez Mdel et al., 2007; Gurel et al., 2013; Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015; Zahlten et al., 2015) , (iii) enhanced inflammatory response at the onset of infection (Korteweg and Gu, 2008; Durbin et al., 2013; Pothlichet et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) leading to increased alveolar damage followed by immune paralysis with defective clearance of microorganisms (Shinya et al., 2006; van Riel et al., 2007 van Riel et al., , 2010 , and (iv) host receptor availability for sustained bacterial infection (Louria et al., 1959; Plotkowski et al., 1993; Cundell and Tuomanen, 1994; Puchelle et al., 2006; Korteweg and Gu, 2008) . However, mouse models for bacterial and/or viral infections have several limitations. Most of the bacterial and viral species under study are human pathogens. In recent years it was also shown that host genetic variations and sex differences have an impact on predisposition, severity, and outcome of infection (Chella Krishnan et al., 2015 While C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice are characterized by a higher resistance, DBA/2 strains are more susceptible and permissive to bacterial and viral strains (Alymova et al., 2011; Chella Krishnan et al., 2015 . In addition, transmission of IAV and bacteria is inefficient in adult mice, thus requiring alternative animal models, including neonatal mice or ferrets (Diavatopoulos et al., 2010; McCullers et al., 2010) . IAV was shown to be essential for pneumococcal transmission from colonized mice to their naive littermates and the transmission occurred only when all mice were infected with IAV (Diavatopoulos et al., 2010) . et al., 2010) . Ferrets are naturally susceptible to IAV isolated from different species, including humans, birds, and swine (Thangavel and Bouvier, 2014) . The infection of ferrets with human seasonal IAV isolates results in an upper respiratory tract infection similar to human influenza infection (Tripp and Tompkins, 2009) . In contrast to mice, non-adapted human IAV can be used for the infection. Unfortunately, there are only few reports on bacterial and IAV co-infections in this model organism. A report by Sanford and Ramsay showed enhanced staphylococcal colonization of the upper respiratory tract in IAV infected animals as compared to non-infected, while no difference between both groups was observed in group B streptococcal infection (Sanford and Ramsay, 1987) . In contrast, Smith and Mc Cullers reported lack of establishment of staphylococcal infection even when ferrets were pre-infected with IAV (Smith and McCullers, 2014) . The biggest advantages of using ferrets as a model include (i) their susceptibility to nonadapted human pathogens, (ii) efficiency in transmitting IAV and bacteria from one individual to another, and (iii) presentation of the clinical signs of disease manifestation akin to human influenza infection. Unfortunately, their limited availability, complex husbandry, and limited accessibility to ferret-specific reagents makes this research difficult to perform (Bouvier and Lowen, 2010) .
In recent years, the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) was also used in pneumonia research. The physiology and anatomy of the guinea pig lung resembles to a certain extent the human lung and this model organism is often used in non-infectious lung diseases, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Canning and Chou, 2008) . In addition, its commercial availability, ease of husbandry, the ability to work with nonadapted pathogens and the efficiency of transmission are reasons for using this in vivo model (Bouvier and Lowen, 2010) . Guinea pigs are susceptible to human, avian, and swine influenza viruses. Although viral replication can be readily detected upon intranasal inoculation in the upper respiratory tract and the lungs, guinea pigs exhibit only minor clinical symptoms (Lowen et al., 2006; Gabbard et al., 2014) . However, the lung pathology of human IAV infected guinea pigs correlates with the clinical severity of human infection (Gabbard et al., 2014) . Transmission of pneumococci in guinea pigs is promoted by co-infection with Sendai virus (Saito et al., 1988) . Guinea pigs infected with pneumococci alone and cage-mated with non-treated contact animals transmitted the bacteria only in 7% of cases, while Sendai-virus infected, co-housed guinea pigs acquired pneumococcal infection in 83% of contacts (Saito et al., 1988) . Another study evaluated antibiotic efficacy in invasive pulmonary infection caused by penicillin resistant pneumococcus (Ponte et al., 1996) . Intratracheal instillation of 3 × 10 9 CFU of S. pneumoniae induced a fatal pneumonia and bacteremia in 85% of untreated animals within 46 h (Ponte et al., 1996) . As with ferrets, there is a paucity of data describing immune responses to pulmonary infectious agents. This is in parts due to the lack of species specific reagents, which is a disadvantage in using this model organism.
Recently, the cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) was reported to be susceptible to IAV. Nasal and pulmonary infection in adult inbred cotton rats did not require viral adaptation (Ottolini et al., 2005) . The infection led to increased breathing rates accompanied by weight loss and decreased body temperature. Replication of IAV was more extensive in nasal tissues than the lung, and persisted for six consecutive days. Tissue pathology included damage of bronchiolar epithelium and the animals developed pneumonia which persisted for nearly 3 weeks (Ottolini et al., 2005) . In bacteriological studies rats are more frequently used. There are numerous rat models investigating the impact of diabetes (Oliveira et al., 2016) , metabolic syndromes (Feng et al., 2015) , cirrhosis , pharmaco-kinetics and dynamics (Antonopoulou et al., 2015; Hoover et al., 2015) , intoxication (Davis et al., 1991) , immunization (Iinuma and Okinaga, 1989) , and general bacterial virulence factors (Shanley et al., 1996) on development of pneumococcal, streptococcal, and staphylococcal pneumonia and lung pathology. Unfortunately, there are only few studies on bacterial and viral co-infections in rats. The first was performed by Harford et al., 1946 (Harford et al., 1946 . The authors concluded that the secondary bacterial pneumonia does not convert the sub-lethal viral infection to a lethal outcome (Harford et al., 1946) . Another study on human respiratory syncytial virus and S. pneumoniae revealed that rats were easily colonized with pneumococci, but viral replication after subsequent infection was strain dependent. In addition, neither pneumococci nor the virus spread from the upper to the lower respiratory tract, and neither pathogen was transmitted to naive cage mates . Although rats share a lot of immune features with humans, including nitric oxide production by macrophages (Carsillo et al., 2009) , the biggest disadvantages are low animal availability, aggressiveness of the species, and the lack of specific reagents.
Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) are well known for their use in studying cardiovascular diseases, antibody production, and eye research. Rabbits were also employed to study pneumonia, although only a few models are available. Typical read-out parameters include survival, leukocyte infiltration of the lungs, lung pathology, and assessment of drug concentration in serum. One of the first studies on pneumococcal pneumonia in rabbits was performed in Kline and Winternitz (1913) . This study revealed that rabbits possess an active immunity if they have recovered from one attack of experimental pneumonia and they may subsequently resist repeated intra-tracheal dosages of pneumococci (Kline and Winternitz, 1913) . In 1926 an infection by inhalation of Type I pneumococci was established in rabbits (Stillman and Branch, 1926) . The bacteria infiltrated easily the lower respiratory tract and pneumococci which reached the lungs usually disappeared within hours and fatal septicemia appeared in some of the animals (Stillman and Branch, 1926) . Most recent rabbit models of pneumococcal and staphylococcal pneumonia are based on intra-bronchial or intra-pulmonary infections which make them useful for pathogenesis (Diep et al., 2010 (Diep et al., , 2017 , as well as drug efficiency and efficacy studies (Cabellos et al., 1992; Croisier-Bertin et al., 2011) . However, this infection route requires surgery and species-specific reagents are scarce. In IAV research rabbits are frequently used for antibody production and for studies on antibody kinetics following single or multiple IAV administrations (Loza-Tulimowska et al., 1977) . Also, rabbits are used for safety investigations of vaccines (e.g., CoVaccine HT or Aflunov) (Heldens et al., 2010; Gasparini et al., 2012) . In recent years the shedding of avian IAV by cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.) was investigated revealing that nasally and orally inoculated cottontails shed relatively large quantities of viral RNA (Root et al., 2014) . Notably, low viral titers were found to be sufficient to initiate viral replication in cottontails (Root et al., 2017) . However, despite their susceptibility to IAV infection, rabbits are only rarely used as model for IAV pathogenesis since they offer no improvement over other established infection models.
Macaques represent the major non-human primate for studying infectious diseases. They are omnivorous and adaptable. The species most commonly used are rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) and cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fasciluraris).
Although it was shown early that macaques were susceptible to IAV (Saslaw et al., 1946) , the animal models of choice remained ferrets and mice. Recently, macaques have been used to compare the pathogenesis of highly virulent 1918 pandemic IAV and the pathogenic bird flu strain (H5N1) with a conventional H1N1 strain (Rimmelzwaan et al., 2001) . Cynomolgus macaques infected with highly pathogenic H5N1 developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, fever, and necrotizing pneumonia (Rimmelzwaan et al., 2001) . The 1918 IAV strain induced dysregulation of the antiviral response leading to insufficient protection of the host, which in turn resulted in acute respiratory distress and a fatal outcome (Kobasa et al., 2007) . The 2009 pandemic H1N1 US isolate caused severe pathological lesions in the lungs of the macaques (Itoh et al., 2009 ). The three studies mentioned above used combined intratracheal delivery of high doses of virus. A recent study by Marriott et al. analyzed the outcome of challenge routes, including inhaled aerosol and intra-nasal instillation with low to moderate doses of H1N1 in cynomolgus macaques (Marriott et al., 2016) . Virus replication was detected in all challenge groups, although the disease remained sub-clinical.
In bacteriological studies non-human primates are rarely used. For group A streptococcal infection longitudinal transcriptome analyses were performed in experimental pharyngitis (Virtaneva et al., 2005) and lower respiratory tract infection in cynomolgus macaques (Olsen et al., 2010a) . The lower respiratory tract disease observed in macaques after GAS infection mimicked the clinical and pathological features of severe bronchopneumonia in humans (Olsen et al., 2010a) . Another study by Olsen and colleagues analyzed the contribution of PVL of a highly virulent USA300 S. aureus strain in respiratory infection (Olsen et al., 2010b) . Although the lower respiratory tract disease observed in monkey mimicked the clinical and pathological features of early mild to moderate pneumonia in humans, no involvement of PVL in lung pathology or immune cell influx of the lungs could be detected (Olsen et al., 2010b) . The same research group has developed a non-lethal IAV (H3N2)-S. aureus co-infection model in cynomolgus macaques (Kobayashi et al., 2013) . Pneumonia progression was monitored by clinical parameters assessment, blood chemistry, nasal swabs, and pathology of the lungs. Seasonal IAV infection in healthy cynomolgus macaques caused mild pneumonia, but did not predispose the animals to subsequent severe infection with the USA300 clone (Kobayashi et al., 2013) .
Although macaques are frequently used for evaluation of pneumococcal vaccine efficacy, including testing the impact of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine on antigen-specific memory B cell repertoires (Jia et al., 2017) , only two studies on pneumococcal carriage and pneumonia were conducted in the last decade. In 2013, Philipp and colleagues analyzed the carriage rate of pneumococcus in 158 colony animals. None of the surveyed rhesus macaques carried S. pneumoniae in the nasopharynx (Philipp et al., 2012) . The authors concluded that rhesus macaque is probably not a natural host of pneumococci. But, when infants were colonized with 19F strain via nasopharyngeal instillation, the colonization was induced in eight of eight infants, lasted for 2 weeks in all animals and for 7 weeks in more than 60% (Philipp et al., 2012) . The same group tested detoxified pneumolysin (dPly) and pneumococcal histidine triad protein D (PhtD) as potential vaccine candidates to prevent pneumonia (Denoel et al., 2011) . After immunization the rhesus macaques were challenged with a 19F pneumococcal strain. AS02-adjuvanted PhtD-dPly vaccine protected the animals against S. pneumoniae-induced pneumonia, which was linked to the capacity (i) to greatly reduce bacterial load within the first week post-challenge and (ii) the levels of PhtD-and Ply-specific antibodies (Denoel et al., 2011) . Although only a few macaque studies on pneumonia exist, due to the close proximity to humans in terms of physiology and immunity, these animals can be a good model in the context of translational studies evaluating therapeutics and prophylaxis.
Despite the wide use of different animal models, the optimal in vivo model for human pneumonia remains to be identified. Small mammals including rodents are well known from a biological, genetic, and immunological point of view and are easy to maintain. The choice of these particular animals for infectious disease studies is often a result of a compromise between technical and financial options. However, they are also far from humans' anatomy, physiology, immunology, and susceptibility to exclusively human pathogens. The experimental animal model should be chosen based on responses comparable to humans. Primates are usually legally reserved to specific topics. In this case, pigs could be an appropriate model system for studying infectious diseases including pneumonia (Figure 1) . The composition and size of the porcine genome is comparable to that of humans (Hart et al., 2007) . In addition, human and porcine organs have many common features and functions (Swindle et al., 2012) . The upper respiratory tract of humans and pigs, including the lymphoid tissue in the nasopharynx, is anatomically similar. Furthermore, like humans, pigs possess tonsils, which are absent in mice (Horter et al., 2003) . A major advantage of studying infectious diseases by utilizing pigs as a host organism is that pigs have a full set of innate and adaptive immune effectors. According to whole genome sequencing results the porcine immune system resembles over 80% of the human immune system, whereas mice share less than 10% with humans (Dawson et al., 2016) . Most of the immune cell compartments identified in humans are also present in pigs (Piriou-Guzylack and Salmon, 2008; Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In contrast to mice and similar to humans, pigs have 50-70% of circulating polymorph nuclear cells (Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In addition, all functional cytokines or orthologs involved in Th1, Th2, Th17, and Treg paradigm and corresponding immune cells have been described in pigs (Murtaugh et al., 2009; Kaser et al., 2011; Kiros et al., 2011) . Especially the very prominent human pro-inflammatory chemo-attractant, CXCL8, is present as an ortholog in pigs, whereas there is no homologue in mice (Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In contrast to human monocytes, which can be divided in three subclasses (classical CD14 + CD16 − , nonclassical CD14 + CD16 + , and intermediate CD14 ++ CD16 + ), porcine monocytes consist of four subclasses (Chamorro et al., 2005; Fairbairn et al., 2013) . Like human monocytes they express adhesion molecules, such as VLA-4 and LFA-1 and costimulatory molecules, including CD80 and CD86 (Chamorro et al., 2005) .
The pig has previously been used to mimic a number of human infectious diseases. Examples for S. aureus infections with this model organism are wound infections Svedman et al., 1989) , osteomyelitis (Jensen et al., 2010) , and sepsis (Nielsen et al., 2009) . Intravenous inoculation of piglets with pneumococci led to bacteremia during a 5 days period and was associated with fever and septic arthritis. Intranasal inoculation of piglets led to colonization for at least six consecutive days without causing clinical signs (De Greeff et al., 2016) . In addition, research on respiratory infections of pigs by human pathogens including S. aureus (Luna et al., 2009) , Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Gil et al., 2010) , Bordetella pertussis (Elahi et al., 2007) , Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Luna et al., 2009) , and IAV (Khatri et al., 2010) , was performed in recent years. The fact that pigs and humans are infected with identical subtypes of IAV (H1N1, H3N2), and show similar clinical presentation and pathogenesis, makes pigs an ideal model organism for studies on respiratory co-infections (Van Reeth et al., 1998) . Especially IAV infections are already well established in swine (Van Reeth et al., 1998 , 2002a Jung et al., 2007; Khatri et al., 2010; Barbe et al., 2011) .
In addition to the limited number of publications on pigs and human pathogens, a lot can be translated and learned from studies on the porcine zoonotic pathogen Streptococcus suis. S. suis usually inhabits mucosal surfaces of tonsils, nares, genital and alimentary tract of piglets. Once the microbial balance is disturbed, the bacteria can cause meningitis, septicemia, arthritis, and pneumonia in pigs (Staats et al., 1997) . Some S. suis strains are considered to be hyper-virulent and others hypo-or avirulent. In general, serotype 2 is most frequently isolated from diseased pigs (Staats et al., 1997) . S. suis can also cause severe diseases in humans including septicemia, meningitis, arthritis, and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (Tang et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2006; Gottschalk et al., 2007) . Although many in vivo studies on S. suis have been performed by utilizing mice as a model organism (Seitz et al., 2012; Auger et al., 2016) , several other studies have shown the advantage of using swine as a natural host for S. suis (Bi et al., 2014; Ferrando et al., 2015) . A recent publication by Lin and colleagues on H1N1 and S. suis co-infected piglets demonstrated the synergistic effects of both pathogens (Lin et al., 2015) . Co-infected piglets had more severe clinical presentation and pathological changes in the lung, as compared to animals infected with single pathogens (Lin et al., 2015) . In addition, genes associated with immune responses, inflammatory cytokine production, and apoptotic pathways were highly overexpressed in the coinfected group (Lin et al., 2015) . Although the porcine model seems to be ideal to mimic human infectious diseases, there are also disadvantages, including, e.g., requirement for specialized experimental animal facilities, time consuming management, high maintenance costs, and limited availability of transgenic animals.
Although the use of animals contributes greatly to our understanding of infectious diseases, human 3D-organotypic tissue models and ex vivo organ tissues should be considered, as they are most valuable tools to study host-pathogen interactions in a more complex setting (Figure 1) . Tissue engineering approaches were originally focused on regenerative medicine (Langer and Vacanti, 1993) . In contrast to standard monolayer cell cultures, tissue models much more closely resemble the 3D architecture, cellular composition, and matrix complexity of the respective organ. In recent years tissue engineering was also successfully employed in a number of studies in infectious diseases, including Zika virus infections of cerebral organoids (Lancaster et al., 2013; Dang et al., 2016) , Helicobacter pylori infections of gastric epithelial organoids (McCracken et al., 2014; Schlaermann et al., 2016) , Escherichia coli and Rotavirus infections of gastrointestinal and small intestinal enteroids (Saxena et al., 2015; VanDussen et al., 2015) , Entamoeba histolytica or Hepatitis B virus infections of hepatic sinusoid tissue (Petropolis et al., 2014 (Petropolis et al., , 2016 , group A and G streptococcal or staphylococcal infections of skin tissue models Mairpady Shambat et al., 2016) , and staphylococcal and Andes hantavirus infections of human lung tissue (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015; Sundstrom et al., 2016) . The adaptability of these tissue-engineered models to multiple pathogens suggests a great potential for studies of infectious diseases. For instance, the lung tissue model relevant for pneumonia consists of lung fibroblasts embedded in a collagen matrix with a stratified epithelial layer on top (Nguyen Hoang et al., 2012) . The engineered tissue is suitable for implanting and studying immune cells, including dendritic cells, monocytes, macrophages, and even peripheral blood mononuclear cells (Nguyen Hoang et al., 2012; Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . A recent publication demonstrated a two-hit-event of lung pathology in staphylococcal necrotizing pneumonia (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . While the α-toxin had direct damaging effect on the lung epithelium, PVL induced lung pathology indirectly through the lysis of neutrophils (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . All the studies mentioned above highlight a significant progress in the field of infectious diseases not only from a scientific point of view but also by contributing to the three R principle of animal experimentation (Russell, 1995) .
On these terms, the use of cultured ex vivo human organ biopsies, which are rare due to ethical considerations, is an additional option to study host-pathogen interactions. This ex vivo system may overcome even the limitations of the engineered tissue. In recent years human ex vivo lung tissue infections with various microorganisms, including pneumococci (Szymanski et al., 2012; Fatykhova et al., 2015) , Bacillus anthracis (Chakrabarty et al., 2007) , Haemophilus influenzae (Zhang et al., 2016) , and IAV (Nicholls et al., 2007; Chan et al., 2009) , were performed. In the human setting, most of the work focused on tropism, severity of infections, release of inflammatory mediators, and replication rates of the microorganisms. In addition, recently also experiments on swine influenza virus (SIV) and S. suis co-infections of the porcine ex vivo lung slices were reported. Meng and colleagues showed that SIV promotes subsequent bacterial infections in a two-step process of which the first initial step was dependent on capsule expression, whereas the second step of bacterial invasion into deeper layers was capsuleindependent and required virus-mediated damage (Meng et al., 2015) . However, this is just a beginning and more investigations are needed to unravel the complexity underlying these highly invasive infections.
In summary, bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract are highly lethal and present a dramatic burden for the global health system. The synergy between bacterial and viral infectious agents is related to a variety of factors, including epithelial barrier damage, exaggerated innate immune response, and cytokine storm. Despite many advances in recent years, more knowledge on mechanisms and immunology of disease progression is needed. The synergistic mechanisms between viruses and bacteria leading to enhanced morbidity and mortality are poorly understood. In vivo characterizations of these severe infections are mainly performed in mice which poorly resemble the human physiology and immune system. Several efforts have been made to establish other models, including ferrets, guinea pigs, rabbits, rats, and non-human primates. However, all have limitations. Here, we suggest using the porcine model, which provides obvious advantages in studies of human infectious diseases and should be considered much more frequent for future studies on severe infectious diseases, including pneumonia. | What types of cells follow epithelial cells in the immune response to infections in the lung? | 5,177 | alveolar macrophages | 18,323 |
1,664 | Port d’Entrée for Respiratory Infections – Does the Influenza A Virus Pave the Way for Bacteria?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5742597/
SHA: ee0050c6fb81a4067d134010d0c80d21edb5df0b
Authors: Siemens, Nikolai; Oehmcke-Hecht, Sonja; Mettenleiter, Thomas C.; Kreikemeyer, Bernd; Valentin-Weigand, Peter; Hammerschmidt, Sven
Date: 2017-12-21
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02602
License: cc-by
Abstract: Bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract are life-threatening and present a global burden to the global community. Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus pyogenes are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract. Imbalances through acquisition of seasonal viruses, e.g., Influenza A virus, can lead to bacterial dissemination to the lower respiratory tract, which in turn can result in severe pneumonia. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract and focus on potential experimental models suitable for mimicking this disease. Transmission of IAV and pneumonia is mainly modeled by mouse infection. Few studies utilizing ferrets, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and non-human primates are also available. The knowledge gained from these studies led to important discoveries and advances in understanding these infectious diseases. Nevertheless, mouse and other infection models have limitations, especially in translation of the discoveries to humans. Here, we suggest the use of human engineered lung tissue, human ex vivo lung tissue, and porcine models to study respiratory co-infections, which might contribute to a greater translation of the results to humans and improve both, animal and human health.
Text: In recent years the human microbiota is more and more recognized to play a crucial role in pathogenesis of many diseases (Weinstock, 2012) . The upper respiratory tract is a natural niche for potentially pathogenic bacteria embedded in commensal communities forming the nasopharyngeal microbiome. In particular, the microbial communities of the nasopharynx (Hilty et al., 2012) are associated with respiratory diseases, i.e., severe pneumonia, which are responsible for substantial mortality and morbidity in humans worldwide (Prina et al., 2016) . The composition of the nasopharyngeal microbiome is highly dynamic (Biesbroek et al., 2014a,b,c) and many factors, including environmental and host factors, can affect microbial colonization (Koppen et al., 2015) . Recent studies on neonates have shown that the respiratory microbiota develops from initially maternally transmitted mixed flora with predominance of Streptococcus viridans species to niche-specific bacterial profiles containing mostly Staphylococcus aureus at around 1 week of age (Bosch et al., 2016a) . Between 2 weeks and 6 months after birth, the staphylococcal predominance declines and colonization with Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococci) as a predominant pathobiont emerges (Miller et al., 2011; Bosch et al., 2016a,b) . The dynamic microbiome composition is guaranteed through the interplay between bacterial species, other microbes, and changing environmental conditions, as well as host-bacteria interactions (Blaser and Falkow, 2009 ). Most of the time, the microbiome and its interplay with the human host are believed to be beneficial for both (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Murphy et al., 2009 ). However, imbalances in microbial composition can lead to acquisition of new viral or bacterial species and invasion of potential pathogens, which in turn can become detrimental, especially in elderly people and children with an exhausted or immature immune system (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Blaser and Falkow, 2009; Murphy et al., 2009) .
One particular example showing imbalances introduced by single dosage of antibiotics was demonstrated by Ichinohe and colleagues (Ichinohe et al., 2011) . While commensal respiratory microbiota facilitated immune-support against Influenza A virus infection (IAV), oral treatment with antibiotics resulted not only in a shift of bacterial composition, but also in impaired CD4 T-, CD8 T-, and B-cell immunity following infection with IAV in mice (Ichinohe et al., 2011) . Analyses of human oropharyngeal microbiomes during the 2009 H1N1 IAV pandemic revealed that at the phylum level, the abundance of Fermicutes and Proteobacteria was augmented in pneumonia patients as compared to healthy controls (Leung et al., 2013) . However, another study published in the same year contradicted these results (Chaban et al., 2013) . Chaban and colleagues analyzed microbiomes of 65 patients from H1N1 IAV outbreak in 2009. Although the phylogenetic composition of pneumonia patients was dominated by Fermicutes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria, no significant differences between the patients and healthy controls or any other variables tested, including age and gender, were observed (Chaban et al., 2013) .
In this review we discuss secondary bacterial infections of the respiratory tract after primary infection by IAV with a focus on mechanisms by which these interactions are potentially mediated, and we will provide insight into the host contribution and immunological consequences. We further focus on potential animal models suitable for mimicking asymptomatic bacterial colonization and disease progression and thus, enabling to study adaptation strategies, viral-bacterial interactions, and immune responses in these highly lethal co-infections.
Influenza A viruses belong to the family of Orthomyxoviridae and based on the antigenicity of their haemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) they are classified into 16 classical HA and 9 classical NA subtypes (Neumann et al., 2009) . The 8-segmented genomes of influenza A viruses are characterized by a significant plasticity. Due to point mutations and re-assortment events new variants or strains with epidemic or pandemic potential emerge (Neumann et al., 2009 ). In addition, influenza can be transmitted between animals, including swine, birds, horses, and humans, making it a zoonotic disease (van der Meer et al., 2010) . Seasonal influenza usually resolves without consequences in healthy individuals. However, it is estimated that seasonal influenza effects 5-10% of the world's population resulting in about 250,000 to 500,000 deaths annually (Tjon-Kon-Fat et al., 2016) . At greater risk to develop secondary bacterial pneumonia are individuals with comorbidities, elderly people (age > 65), pregnant women, and children under the age of one (Rothberg et al., 2008) .
For a long time it was considered that the H1N1 strain, an avian-like H1N1 virus, directly caused most of the fatalities during the 1918-1919 pandemic (Spanish Flu), often from a hemorrhagic pneumonitis rapidly progressing to acute respiratory distress syndrome and death (Osterholm, 2005; Gerberding, 2006; Oxford et al., 2006) . The pandemic killed around 50 million people worldwide and remains unique in its severity compared to other big outbreaks. However, many of the findings have been reinterpreted in recent years (Brundage and Shanks, 2007; Chien et al., 2009) . It is estimated that around 95% of all severe cases and deaths were attributed to secondary infections with bacterial pathogens, most predominantly by Streptococcus pneumoniae (Morens et al., 2008) . Individual studies limited to certain regions identified also other pathogens commonly colonizing the respiratory tract, including Staphylococcus aureus, group A streptococcus (GAS) and Haemophilus influenzae (Brundage and Shanks, 2008) . During the next two pandemics (H2N2 Asian Flu 1957 and H3N2 Hong Kong Flu 1968 −1969 bacterial co-infections were less likely the cause of death compared to the Spanish Flu (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957; Trotter et al., 1959) . Still, pneumonia accounted for about 44% of deaths during the Asian Flu (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957) . Most fatalities resulting from pneumonia occurred in individuals with chronic conditions, i.e., chronic lung diseases, rheumatic carditis, and hypertension (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957) . In 1957-1958, S. aureus was predominantly isolated from fatal pneumonia cases (Hers et al., 1957 (Hers et al., , 1958 Robertson et al., 1958; Martin et al., 1959) , whereas S. pneumoniae returned as predominant cause of severe pneumonia during the Hong Kong Flu (Sharrar, 1969; Bisno et al., 1971; Burk et al., 1971; Schwarzmann et al., 1971) . Forty years later in 2009, a novel H1N1 virus of swine origin emerged and caused again a pandemic (Dawood et al., 2009 (Dawood et al., , 2012 . In contrast to Asian and Hong Kong Flu, mortality rates were rather low, but most deaths occurred in healthy young individuals with no underlying conditions (Reichert et al., 2010; Monsalvo et al., 2011; Dawood et al., 2012) . About 25-50% of severe or fatal cases were linked to complications due to bacterial pneumonia (Dominguez-Cherit et al., 2009; Estenssoro et al., 2010; Mauad et al., 2010; Shieh et al., 2010 ). Although regional variations occurred, pneumococci and S. aureus were the most frequently isolated bacterial species (Mauad et al., 2010; Shieh et al., 2010; Rice et al., 2012) . Group A streptococcus was absent in many local pneumonia outbreaks associated with viruses, but was predominant in others (Brundage and Shanks, 2008; Ampofo et al., 2010) . When it does appear, it is typically third in incidence (Chaussee et al., 2011) . Overall, data on pandemic outbreaks suggest that disease severity and mortality can be linked to secondary bacterial pathogens with variations depending on regions and state of immunity of the population (Brundage and Shanks, 2008; Shanks et al., 2010 Shanks et al., , 2011 McCullers, 2013) .
There is increasing evidence that the nasopharyngeal microbiota plays an important role in the pathogenesis of acute viral respiratory infections (Teo et al., 2015; de Steenhuijsen Piters et al., 2016; Rosas-Salazar et al., 2016a,b) . Respiratory viruses, including IAV, have been shown to alter bacterial adherence and colonization leading to an increased risk of secondary bacterial infections (Tregoning and Schwarze, 2010) . Pneumococci, S. aureus, and GAS are important human Gram-positive pathogens. All of them are frequent colonizers of the human nasopharynx and they share many features including pathogenic mechanisms and clinical aspects (Figure 1) . However, they also have unique properties.
Staphylococcus aureus colonizes persistently about 30% of the human population and typical niches include nares, axillae, and skin (Peacock et al., 2001; von Eiff et al., 2001; van Belkum et al., 2009) . They cause a variety of clinical manifestations ranging from mild skin infections to fatal necrotizing pneumonia. In the last decades, the pathogen became resistant to an increasing number of antibiotics and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is now a major cause of hospital acquired infections (Hartman and Tomasz, 1984; Ubukata et al., 1989; Zetola et al., 2005) . Also the rise of community-acquired S. aureus strains is of special concern, because certain clones are associated with very severe infections (Rasigade et al., 2010) . Recent prospective studies demonstrated an increase in proportion of communityacquired methicillin-sensitive S. aureus in severe pneumonia cases (McCaskill et al., 2007; Sicot et al., 2013) .
The pneumococcus is a typical colonizer of the human nasopharynx. About 20-50% of healthy children and 8-30% of healthy adults are asymptomatically colonized (McCullers, 2006) . Pneumococci cause diseases ranging from mild, i.e., sinusitis, conjunctivitis, and otitis media, to more severe and potentially life-threatening infections, including communityacquired pneumonia, bacteraemia, and meningitis (Bogaert et al., 2004; Valles et al., 2016) . This bacterium is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates in risk groups such as immunocompromised individuals, children, and elderly (Black et al., 2010; Valles et al., 2016) .
Group A streptococci colonize the mouth and upper respiratory tract in about 2-5% of world's population (Okumura and Nizet, 2014) . The most common, non-invasive and mild infections caused by GAS are tonsillitis and pharyngitis with estimated 600 million cases per year (Carapetis et al., 2005) .
Listed as number nine in the list of global killers with around 500,000 deaths annually (Carapetis et al., 2005) , it is obvious that this pathogen can cause severe invasive infections, including pneumonia, sepsis, streptococcal toxic shock syndrome, and necrotizing skin infections (Cunningham, 2000; Carapetis et al., 2005) .
Although all three pathogens are able to cause highly lethal diseases, the most fatal remains the pneumococcus, estimated to cause ca. 10% of all deaths in children below 5 years of age (O'Brien et al., 2009) , in the elderly (Marrie et al., 2017) , and in immuno-compromised individuals (Baxter et al., 2016) .
Influenza A virus binds via HA to either α2,3or α2,6-linked sialic acid at the surface of epithelial cells of the upper and lower respiratory tract (Webster et al., 1992) . Seasonal strains show usually affinity to α2,6-linked sialic acids that are expressed in the human trachea, whereas avian-like viruses preferentially bind to α2,3-linked sialic acids of alveolar type II cells (Shinya et al., 2006; van Riel et al., 2007 van Riel et al., , 2010 . The release of viral genomic RNA into the cytosol activates different immune response pathways. Binding of viral RNA to retinoic acid inducible gene 1 induces the expression of type I and III interferons and activates transcription factor NF-κB, which in turn activates the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines (Durbin et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) . In addition, inflammasome activation leads to the release of IL-1β and IL-18 (Pothlichet et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) . All these responses are supposed to promote viral clearance. However, the presence of viral proteins during infection induces also direct activation of the intrinsic or indirectly the activation of the extrinsic apoptotic pathway via production of inflammatory cytokines, resulting in apoptosis or even necrosis of the epithelium (Korteweg and Gu, 2008) . Furthermore, aberrant coagulation induced by virus infection causes a hyper-inflammatory response (Yang and Tang, 2016) . All these events contribute to lung tissue injury (Imai et al., 2008; Davidson et al., 2014) . The epithelial damage due to viral replication provides a beneficial environment for initial bacterial attachment (Plotkowski et al., 1993) . On the other hand, already colonized bacteria might enhance influenza virus virulence either by directly secreting proteases that cleave and activate HA (Figure 2 ) (Bottcher-Friebertshauser et al., 2013) or, indirectly, by activating host proteases such as plasminogen, which increases replication rates and infectivity of the virus (Scheiblauer et al., 1992; Tse and Whittaker, 2015) .
Potentially pathogenic bacteria, including the three species mentioned above, express an arsenal of virulence factors responsible for attachment to human host structures. Microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules FIGURE 1 | Potential models to study bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract. S. pneumoniae, S. aureus, S. pyogenes, and S. suis are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract. Seasonal IAV infection can lead to an increased risk of secondary bacterial infections, i.e., pneumonia. Several experimental models can be used for studying these severe infections. Patient samples, including ex vivo lung tissue are materials of choice, but they are rare due to ethical considerations. Tissue engineering approaches closely resemble the 3D architecture, cellular composition, and matrix complexity of the respective organ and were proven as useful tool to study infectious diseases. In vivo bacterial and viral co-infections are mainly performed in mice, which does not necessarily resemble the human physiology and immune system. Thus, we suggest using the porcine model, which nearly resembles over 80% of the human immune system.
(MSCRAMMs), such as PspC, PspA, and PsaA in pneumococci (Hammerschmidt, 2006) , SPA, FnbA, ClfA, and ClfB in S. aureus (Bartlett and Hulten, 2010; Otto, 2010) , and M-protein, PrtF1, and PrtF2 in GAS (Cunningham, 2000) , respectively, and socalled moon-lightning proteins expressed by all three species, e.g., GAPDH, enolase or PGK (Fulde et al., 2013) , enable the bacteria to attach to damaged cells or molecules of the extracellular matrix, including fibronectin, fibrin, fibrinogen, and collagens, or fibrinolytic proteins like plasminogen (McCullers and Rehg, 2002; Bergmann and Hammerschmidt, 2007; Linke et al., 2012; Siemens et al., 2012; Voss et al., 2012) . Once the initial attachment occurs, bacterial cytotoxins including pneumolysin of pneumococci (Garcia-Suarez Mdel et al., 2007; Zahlten et al., 2015) , α-hemolysin and leukocidins of S. aureus (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) , and Streptolysins S and O and Streptococcal pyrogenic exotoxin B of S. pyogenes (Tsai et al., 1998; Gurel et al., 2013; Siemens et al., 2015 Siemens et al., , 2016 , can synergize with viral counterparts to further increase lung tissue pathology. Additional potential mechanisms by which the initial colonization of the lower respiratory tract and lung tissue damage might occur include potentiation of the development of pneumonia by IAV neuraminidase through enzymatic removal of sialic acid from the lung, thus exposing host receptors for pneumococcal adherence (McCullers and Bartmess, 2003) . The host inflammatory state in response to viral infection can alter presentation of receptors on the surface, thus allowing bacterial invasion (Cundell and Tuomanen, 1994) . As the patient begins to recover from viral infection, secondary bacterial infections might occur (Louria et al., 1959) due to the incomplete wound healing and exposure of host membrane components, including laminin, collagens type I and IV to classical bacterial MSCRAMMs (Louria et al., 1959; Puchelle et al., 2006) .
Epithelial cells are the first responders to infections in the lung, followed by the tissue resident alveolar macrophages. They promote viral clearance via phagocytosis, efferocytosis, and release of cytokines and chemokines to promote immune responses (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Kumagai et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2012; Hillaire et al., 2013) . Respiratory viruses like IAV are able to induce suppression and killing of the resident alveolar macrophages (Figure 2 ) (Ghoneim et al., 2013) . These cells are usually replaced by differentiation of recruited blood derived monocytes into macrophages of different polarization patterns. This in turn creates a delay in pathogen clearance and opens a window for host susceptibility to secondary bacterial infections, colloquially named superinfections (Ghoneim et al., 2013) . In addition, induction of interferons as a response to viral infection compromises the immune sensing of Gram-positive bacteria by neutrophils and macrophages, which would normally clear the bacteria from the lungs (Figure 2 ) (Sun and Metzger, 2008; Tian et al., 2012) . The exact mechanism underlying this phenomenon is still not understood. Several studies suggested that viral RNA activates Toll-like receptors (TLR) 2 and TLR4 and, consequently, the production of type I interferons to promote an antiviral state (Shahangian et al., 2009) . The subsequent infection with Gram-positive bacteria, e.g., pneumococci, enhances the type I interferon expression, which in turn suppresses production of the CCL2 chemokine and recruitment of macrophages (Nakamura Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org FIGURE 2 | The interplay between IAV, bacteria, and the human host. The epithelial damage due to viral replication provides a beneficial environment for bacterial (Bact.) attachment. IAV is able to induce suppression and killing of resident alveolar macrophages (AM), which in turn delays viral clearance. The release of viral RNA activates different immune response pathways resulting in cytokine storm. Type I and III interferons compromise the immune recognition of Gram-positive bacteria by neutrophils and macrophages. In addition, they might suppress natural killer cell function (NK), including release of TNF, which activates alveolar macrophages. After initial inflammation, the situation might worsen due to cellular infiltration of the lungs by neutrophils (PMN), leading to an increased degranulation and tissue damage by effector molecules, including heparin-binding protein (HBP). et al., 2011). Another study by Shahangian et al. (2009) revealed that the antiviral state leads to impaired production of neutrophil chemoattractants CXCL1 and CXCL2, which in turn promotes less effective immune responses due to attenuated neutrophil functions during the early phase of pneumococcal invasion. Other studies found that IAV exposed lungs had impaired natural killer (NK) cell responses in the airway to subsequent S. aureus infection (Small et al., 2010) . Reduced TNFα production by NK cells was identified as a crucial upstream mechanism of depressed antimicrobial activities by alveolar macrophages (Figure 2 ) (Small et al., 2010) . It seems likely that IAV NA is also able to activate host cell receptors in a TGF-β dependent manner, which in turn promotes GAS invasion and subsequent lung pathology (Li et al., 2015) . In vitro studies on the interplay between IAV-pneumococci and human dendritic cells revealed TLR3 as a crucial sensor of viral and bacterial RNA leading to enhanced IL-12p70 production, which in turn might promote an anti-viral state by upregulation of interferons (Yamamoto et al., 2004; Spelmink et al., 2016) . However, it should be noted that depending on the bacterial species the disease manifestation and underlying innate immune responses might vary (Sharma-Chawla et al., 2016) .
A lot of the experimental studies on disease mechanisms and immune responses are based on a subsequent bacterial infection within hours or a few days post IAV infection. However, bacterial infiltrations of the lungs might occur much later, i.e., during the onset of wound healing after partial clearance of IAV, which has been reported in most studies performed in recent years (Snelgrove et al., 2008; Hussell and Cavanagh, 2009 ). These processes are characterized by a general anti-inflammatory state and suppression of mechanisms involved in pathogen clearance due to increased interleukin-10 production (van der Sluijs et al., 2004; Metzger and Sun, 2013) . The anti-inflammatory state suppresses the expression of pattern recognition receptors (PRR) on professional phagocytes leading to impaired phagocytosis and killing of microbes. These events might allow bacterial overgrowth in the lungs and tissue pathology (Sun and Metzger, 2008; Goulding et al., 2011) .
Like other severe infectious diseases caused by single agents, pneumonia is characterized by hyper-inflammatory conditions of the lungs at the onset of infection followed by a hypoinflammatory state with immune paralysis (Morton et al., 2014) . In co-infections, after initial inflammation in response to viral infection the situation might worsen due to bacterial invasion and enhanced cellular infiltration of the lungs by neutrophils, leading to an increased tissue damage and cytokine storm (Figure 2 ) (Conenello et al., 2007; McAuley et al., 2007 McAuley et al., , 2010 Porto and Stein, 2016) . Furthermore, the coagulation system becomes activated and contributes to the pathophysiological response to infection (van der Poll and Herwald, 2014). Bacteria like pneumococci, S. aureus, and GAS can activate and modulate the coagulation system, leading to extensive expression of tissue factor and increasing the risk of severe coagulopathy Shannon et al., 2013; Walters et al., 2016) .
Bacterial pathogens also express a variety of cytolytic toxins that can contribute to inflammation and tissue pathology. Pneumolysin, a pneumococcal pore-forming toxin with low affinity to lung epithelial cells, can damage neutrophils by utilizing P2X7 receptor (Domon et al., 2016) . Staphylococcal cytotoxins (α-toxin and leukocidins, including Panton-Valentine leucocidin, PVL) are associated with severe tissue pathology, strong upregulation of chemokines, and increased neutrophil influx of the lungs (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . GAS toxins, including SLO and SpeB, are capable of directly causing tissue damage and promoting pro-inflammatory states through neutrophil lysis (Snall et al., 2016; Uhlmann et al., 2016) . The cytolytic effects caused by bacterial toxins might synergize with the outcome of IAV cytotoxic accessory protein, PB1-F2, mediated tissue pathology leading to enhanced cytokine production (Ramos and Fernandez-Sesma, 2012) . Taken together, most likely synergistic effects of the pathways that are involved in bacterial and viral inflammation lead to enhanced immune activation and higher morbidity and mortality (Joyce et al., 2009; Koppe et al., 2012; Ramos and Fernandez-Sesma, 2012; Bucasas et al., 2013; Kuri et al., 2013) . Figure 2 summarizes the interplay between virus, bacteria, and host.
Experimental animal models are a useful tool to study in vivo effects of different infectious agents and they represent approximately 3% of all pneumonia research published in peerreview journals (Hraiech et al., 2015) . However, the constant increase of animal studies in the last decades is in contrast to their reproducibility in humans (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Hackam and colleagues identified 2,000 articles published between 1980 and 2006 in seven leading scientific journals that regularly publish animal studies (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Seventy-six out of 2,000 were highly cited with a median citation count of 889. Out of these 76 studies 28 were replicated in human randomized trials, 14 were contradicted, and 34 remained untested (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Only 1.4% of the animal studies published in high-impact journals were translated in human randomized trials (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) , whereas about 44% replication rate was reported for highly cited human studies (Ioannidis, 2005) . In pneumonia models, mammalians are mostly used because of their anatomical and physiological proximity to humans (Hraiech et al., 2015) . To monitor extensive physiological studies, larger mammalian species, including ferrets, dogs, rabbits, pigs, and baboons are the models of choice (Mizgerd and Skerrett, 2008) . However, rodents and in particular mice are used more frequently as a pneumonia model organisms. Rapid reproductive rate, small size, less complicated handling, the ability to reproduce and compare results with already published bacterial and viral mono-infections, detailed knowledge of genetics and immune responses, and a plethora of available reagents to study infections in mice are reasons for the use of these animals. To avoid variations in responses due to genetic diversity inbred mice strains are useful tools for studies aiming to elucidate molecular mechanisms of diseases. In addition, genetic engineering allowed to generate a wide variety of mouse variants with gainof-function, loss-of-function or reporter genes (Mizgerd and Skerrett, 2008) .
As outlined above, many in vivo mice studies on bacterial and viral co-infections provided useful insights into severe pneumonia, including (i) the fact that viral infection primes the host for bacterial susceptibility leading to severe secondary infection (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Shahangian et al., 2009; Chaussee et al., 2011; Nakamura et al., 2011) , (ii) pathogen synergism (Tsai et al., 1998; McCullers and Rehg, 2002; Garcia-Suarez Mdel et al., 2007; Gurel et al., 2013; Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015; Zahlten et al., 2015) , (iii) enhanced inflammatory response at the onset of infection (Korteweg and Gu, 2008; Durbin et al., 2013; Pothlichet et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) leading to increased alveolar damage followed by immune paralysis with defective clearance of microorganisms (Shinya et al., 2006; van Riel et al., 2007 van Riel et al., , 2010 , and (iv) host receptor availability for sustained bacterial infection (Louria et al., 1959; Plotkowski et al., 1993; Cundell and Tuomanen, 1994; Puchelle et al., 2006; Korteweg and Gu, 2008) . However, mouse models for bacterial and/or viral infections have several limitations. Most of the bacterial and viral species under study are human pathogens. In recent years it was also shown that host genetic variations and sex differences have an impact on predisposition, severity, and outcome of infection (Chella Krishnan et al., 2015 While C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice are characterized by a higher resistance, DBA/2 strains are more susceptible and permissive to bacterial and viral strains (Alymova et al., 2011; Chella Krishnan et al., 2015 . In addition, transmission of IAV and bacteria is inefficient in adult mice, thus requiring alternative animal models, including neonatal mice or ferrets (Diavatopoulos et al., 2010; McCullers et al., 2010) . IAV was shown to be essential for pneumococcal transmission from colonized mice to their naive littermates and the transmission occurred only when all mice were infected with IAV (Diavatopoulos et al., 2010) . et al., 2010) . Ferrets are naturally susceptible to IAV isolated from different species, including humans, birds, and swine (Thangavel and Bouvier, 2014) . The infection of ferrets with human seasonal IAV isolates results in an upper respiratory tract infection similar to human influenza infection (Tripp and Tompkins, 2009) . In contrast to mice, non-adapted human IAV can be used for the infection. Unfortunately, there are only few reports on bacterial and IAV co-infections in this model organism. A report by Sanford and Ramsay showed enhanced staphylococcal colonization of the upper respiratory tract in IAV infected animals as compared to non-infected, while no difference between both groups was observed in group B streptococcal infection (Sanford and Ramsay, 1987) . In contrast, Smith and Mc Cullers reported lack of establishment of staphylococcal infection even when ferrets were pre-infected with IAV (Smith and McCullers, 2014) . The biggest advantages of using ferrets as a model include (i) their susceptibility to nonadapted human pathogens, (ii) efficiency in transmitting IAV and bacteria from one individual to another, and (iii) presentation of the clinical signs of disease manifestation akin to human influenza infection. Unfortunately, their limited availability, complex husbandry, and limited accessibility to ferret-specific reagents makes this research difficult to perform (Bouvier and Lowen, 2010) .
In recent years, the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) was also used in pneumonia research. The physiology and anatomy of the guinea pig lung resembles to a certain extent the human lung and this model organism is often used in non-infectious lung diseases, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Canning and Chou, 2008) . In addition, its commercial availability, ease of husbandry, the ability to work with nonadapted pathogens and the efficiency of transmission are reasons for using this in vivo model (Bouvier and Lowen, 2010) . Guinea pigs are susceptible to human, avian, and swine influenza viruses. Although viral replication can be readily detected upon intranasal inoculation in the upper respiratory tract and the lungs, guinea pigs exhibit only minor clinical symptoms (Lowen et al., 2006; Gabbard et al., 2014) . However, the lung pathology of human IAV infected guinea pigs correlates with the clinical severity of human infection (Gabbard et al., 2014) . Transmission of pneumococci in guinea pigs is promoted by co-infection with Sendai virus (Saito et al., 1988) . Guinea pigs infected with pneumococci alone and cage-mated with non-treated contact animals transmitted the bacteria only in 7% of cases, while Sendai-virus infected, co-housed guinea pigs acquired pneumococcal infection in 83% of contacts (Saito et al., 1988) . Another study evaluated antibiotic efficacy in invasive pulmonary infection caused by penicillin resistant pneumococcus (Ponte et al., 1996) . Intratracheal instillation of 3 × 10 9 CFU of S. pneumoniae induced a fatal pneumonia and bacteremia in 85% of untreated animals within 46 h (Ponte et al., 1996) . As with ferrets, there is a paucity of data describing immune responses to pulmonary infectious agents. This is in parts due to the lack of species specific reagents, which is a disadvantage in using this model organism.
Recently, the cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) was reported to be susceptible to IAV. Nasal and pulmonary infection in adult inbred cotton rats did not require viral adaptation (Ottolini et al., 2005) . The infection led to increased breathing rates accompanied by weight loss and decreased body temperature. Replication of IAV was more extensive in nasal tissues than the lung, and persisted for six consecutive days. Tissue pathology included damage of bronchiolar epithelium and the animals developed pneumonia which persisted for nearly 3 weeks (Ottolini et al., 2005) . In bacteriological studies rats are more frequently used. There are numerous rat models investigating the impact of diabetes (Oliveira et al., 2016) , metabolic syndromes (Feng et al., 2015) , cirrhosis , pharmaco-kinetics and dynamics (Antonopoulou et al., 2015; Hoover et al., 2015) , intoxication (Davis et al., 1991) , immunization (Iinuma and Okinaga, 1989) , and general bacterial virulence factors (Shanley et al., 1996) on development of pneumococcal, streptococcal, and staphylococcal pneumonia and lung pathology. Unfortunately, there are only few studies on bacterial and viral co-infections in rats. The first was performed by Harford et al., 1946 (Harford et al., 1946 . The authors concluded that the secondary bacterial pneumonia does not convert the sub-lethal viral infection to a lethal outcome (Harford et al., 1946) . Another study on human respiratory syncytial virus and S. pneumoniae revealed that rats were easily colonized with pneumococci, but viral replication after subsequent infection was strain dependent. In addition, neither pneumococci nor the virus spread from the upper to the lower respiratory tract, and neither pathogen was transmitted to naive cage mates . Although rats share a lot of immune features with humans, including nitric oxide production by macrophages (Carsillo et al., 2009) , the biggest disadvantages are low animal availability, aggressiveness of the species, and the lack of specific reagents.
Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) are well known for their use in studying cardiovascular diseases, antibody production, and eye research. Rabbits were also employed to study pneumonia, although only a few models are available. Typical read-out parameters include survival, leukocyte infiltration of the lungs, lung pathology, and assessment of drug concentration in serum. One of the first studies on pneumococcal pneumonia in rabbits was performed in Kline and Winternitz (1913) . This study revealed that rabbits possess an active immunity if they have recovered from one attack of experimental pneumonia and they may subsequently resist repeated intra-tracheal dosages of pneumococci (Kline and Winternitz, 1913) . In 1926 an infection by inhalation of Type I pneumococci was established in rabbits (Stillman and Branch, 1926) . The bacteria infiltrated easily the lower respiratory tract and pneumococci which reached the lungs usually disappeared within hours and fatal septicemia appeared in some of the animals (Stillman and Branch, 1926) . Most recent rabbit models of pneumococcal and staphylococcal pneumonia are based on intra-bronchial or intra-pulmonary infections which make them useful for pathogenesis (Diep et al., 2010 (Diep et al., , 2017 , as well as drug efficiency and efficacy studies (Cabellos et al., 1992; Croisier-Bertin et al., 2011) . However, this infection route requires surgery and species-specific reagents are scarce. In IAV research rabbits are frequently used for antibody production and for studies on antibody kinetics following single or multiple IAV administrations (Loza-Tulimowska et al., 1977) . Also, rabbits are used for safety investigations of vaccines (e.g., CoVaccine HT or Aflunov) (Heldens et al., 2010; Gasparini et al., 2012) . In recent years the shedding of avian IAV by cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.) was investigated revealing that nasally and orally inoculated cottontails shed relatively large quantities of viral RNA (Root et al., 2014) . Notably, low viral titers were found to be sufficient to initiate viral replication in cottontails (Root et al., 2017) . However, despite their susceptibility to IAV infection, rabbits are only rarely used as model for IAV pathogenesis since they offer no improvement over other established infection models.
Macaques represent the major non-human primate for studying infectious diseases. They are omnivorous and adaptable. The species most commonly used are rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) and cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fasciluraris).
Although it was shown early that macaques were susceptible to IAV (Saslaw et al., 1946) , the animal models of choice remained ferrets and mice. Recently, macaques have been used to compare the pathogenesis of highly virulent 1918 pandemic IAV and the pathogenic bird flu strain (H5N1) with a conventional H1N1 strain (Rimmelzwaan et al., 2001) . Cynomolgus macaques infected with highly pathogenic H5N1 developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, fever, and necrotizing pneumonia (Rimmelzwaan et al., 2001) . The 1918 IAV strain induced dysregulation of the antiviral response leading to insufficient protection of the host, which in turn resulted in acute respiratory distress and a fatal outcome (Kobasa et al., 2007) . The 2009 pandemic H1N1 US isolate caused severe pathological lesions in the lungs of the macaques (Itoh et al., 2009 ). The three studies mentioned above used combined intratracheal delivery of high doses of virus. A recent study by Marriott et al. analyzed the outcome of challenge routes, including inhaled aerosol and intra-nasal instillation with low to moderate doses of H1N1 in cynomolgus macaques (Marriott et al., 2016) . Virus replication was detected in all challenge groups, although the disease remained sub-clinical.
In bacteriological studies non-human primates are rarely used. For group A streptococcal infection longitudinal transcriptome analyses were performed in experimental pharyngitis (Virtaneva et al., 2005) and lower respiratory tract infection in cynomolgus macaques (Olsen et al., 2010a) . The lower respiratory tract disease observed in macaques after GAS infection mimicked the clinical and pathological features of severe bronchopneumonia in humans (Olsen et al., 2010a) . Another study by Olsen and colleagues analyzed the contribution of PVL of a highly virulent USA300 S. aureus strain in respiratory infection (Olsen et al., 2010b) . Although the lower respiratory tract disease observed in monkey mimicked the clinical and pathological features of early mild to moderate pneumonia in humans, no involvement of PVL in lung pathology or immune cell influx of the lungs could be detected (Olsen et al., 2010b) . The same research group has developed a non-lethal IAV (H3N2)-S. aureus co-infection model in cynomolgus macaques (Kobayashi et al., 2013) . Pneumonia progression was monitored by clinical parameters assessment, blood chemistry, nasal swabs, and pathology of the lungs. Seasonal IAV infection in healthy cynomolgus macaques caused mild pneumonia, but did not predispose the animals to subsequent severe infection with the USA300 clone (Kobayashi et al., 2013) .
Although macaques are frequently used for evaluation of pneumococcal vaccine efficacy, including testing the impact of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine on antigen-specific memory B cell repertoires (Jia et al., 2017) , only two studies on pneumococcal carriage and pneumonia were conducted in the last decade. In 2013, Philipp and colleagues analyzed the carriage rate of pneumococcus in 158 colony animals. None of the surveyed rhesus macaques carried S. pneumoniae in the nasopharynx (Philipp et al., 2012) . The authors concluded that rhesus macaque is probably not a natural host of pneumococci. But, when infants were colonized with 19F strain via nasopharyngeal instillation, the colonization was induced in eight of eight infants, lasted for 2 weeks in all animals and for 7 weeks in more than 60% (Philipp et al., 2012) . The same group tested detoxified pneumolysin (dPly) and pneumococcal histidine triad protein D (PhtD) as potential vaccine candidates to prevent pneumonia (Denoel et al., 2011) . After immunization the rhesus macaques were challenged with a 19F pneumococcal strain. AS02-adjuvanted PhtD-dPly vaccine protected the animals against S. pneumoniae-induced pneumonia, which was linked to the capacity (i) to greatly reduce bacterial load within the first week post-challenge and (ii) the levels of PhtD-and Ply-specific antibodies (Denoel et al., 2011) . Although only a few macaque studies on pneumonia exist, due to the close proximity to humans in terms of physiology and immunity, these animals can be a good model in the context of translational studies evaluating therapeutics and prophylaxis.
Despite the wide use of different animal models, the optimal in vivo model for human pneumonia remains to be identified. Small mammals including rodents are well known from a biological, genetic, and immunological point of view and are easy to maintain. The choice of these particular animals for infectious disease studies is often a result of a compromise between technical and financial options. However, they are also far from humans' anatomy, physiology, immunology, and susceptibility to exclusively human pathogens. The experimental animal model should be chosen based on responses comparable to humans. Primates are usually legally reserved to specific topics. In this case, pigs could be an appropriate model system for studying infectious diseases including pneumonia (Figure 1) . The composition and size of the porcine genome is comparable to that of humans (Hart et al., 2007) . In addition, human and porcine organs have many common features and functions (Swindle et al., 2012) . The upper respiratory tract of humans and pigs, including the lymphoid tissue in the nasopharynx, is anatomically similar. Furthermore, like humans, pigs possess tonsils, which are absent in mice (Horter et al., 2003) . A major advantage of studying infectious diseases by utilizing pigs as a host organism is that pigs have a full set of innate and adaptive immune effectors. According to whole genome sequencing results the porcine immune system resembles over 80% of the human immune system, whereas mice share less than 10% with humans (Dawson et al., 2016) . Most of the immune cell compartments identified in humans are also present in pigs (Piriou-Guzylack and Salmon, 2008; Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In contrast to mice and similar to humans, pigs have 50-70% of circulating polymorph nuclear cells (Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In addition, all functional cytokines or orthologs involved in Th1, Th2, Th17, and Treg paradigm and corresponding immune cells have been described in pigs (Murtaugh et al., 2009; Kaser et al., 2011; Kiros et al., 2011) . Especially the very prominent human pro-inflammatory chemo-attractant, CXCL8, is present as an ortholog in pigs, whereas there is no homologue in mice (Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In contrast to human monocytes, which can be divided in three subclasses (classical CD14 + CD16 − , nonclassical CD14 + CD16 + , and intermediate CD14 ++ CD16 + ), porcine monocytes consist of four subclasses (Chamorro et al., 2005; Fairbairn et al., 2013) . Like human monocytes they express adhesion molecules, such as VLA-4 and LFA-1 and costimulatory molecules, including CD80 and CD86 (Chamorro et al., 2005) .
The pig has previously been used to mimic a number of human infectious diseases. Examples for S. aureus infections with this model organism are wound infections Svedman et al., 1989) , osteomyelitis (Jensen et al., 2010) , and sepsis (Nielsen et al., 2009) . Intravenous inoculation of piglets with pneumococci led to bacteremia during a 5 days period and was associated with fever and septic arthritis. Intranasal inoculation of piglets led to colonization for at least six consecutive days without causing clinical signs (De Greeff et al., 2016) . In addition, research on respiratory infections of pigs by human pathogens including S. aureus (Luna et al., 2009) , Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Gil et al., 2010) , Bordetella pertussis (Elahi et al., 2007) , Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Luna et al., 2009) , and IAV (Khatri et al., 2010) , was performed in recent years. The fact that pigs and humans are infected with identical subtypes of IAV (H1N1, H3N2), and show similar clinical presentation and pathogenesis, makes pigs an ideal model organism for studies on respiratory co-infections (Van Reeth et al., 1998) . Especially IAV infections are already well established in swine (Van Reeth et al., 1998 , 2002a Jung et al., 2007; Khatri et al., 2010; Barbe et al., 2011) .
In addition to the limited number of publications on pigs and human pathogens, a lot can be translated and learned from studies on the porcine zoonotic pathogen Streptococcus suis. S. suis usually inhabits mucosal surfaces of tonsils, nares, genital and alimentary tract of piglets. Once the microbial balance is disturbed, the bacteria can cause meningitis, septicemia, arthritis, and pneumonia in pigs (Staats et al., 1997) . Some S. suis strains are considered to be hyper-virulent and others hypo-or avirulent. In general, serotype 2 is most frequently isolated from diseased pigs (Staats et al., 1997) . S. suis can also cause severe diseases in humans including septicemia, meningitis, arthritis, and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (Tang et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2006; Gottschalk et al., 2007) . Although many in vivo studies on S. suis have been performed by utilizing mice as a model organism (Seitz et al., 2012; Auger et al., 2016) , several other studies have shown the advantage of using swine as a natural host for S. suis (Bi et al., 2014; Ferrando et al., 2015) . A recent publication by Lin and colleagues on H1N1 and S. suis co-infected piglets demonstrated the synergistic effects of both pathogens (Lin et al., 2015) . Co-infected piglets had more severe clinical presentation and pathological changes in the lung, as compared to animals infected with single pathogens (Lin et al., 2015) . In addition, genes associated with immune responses, inflammatory cytokine production, and apoptotic pathways were highly overexpressed in the coinfected group (Lin et al., 2015) . Although the porcine model seems to be ideal to mimic human infectious diseases, there are also disadvantages, including, e.g., requirement for specialized experimental animal facilities, time consuming management, high maintenance costs, and limited availability of transgenic animals.
Although the use of animals contributes greatly to our understanding of infectious diseases, human 3D-organotypic tissue models and ex vivo organ tissues should be considered, as they are most valuable tools to study host-pathogen interactions in a more complex setting (Figure 1) . Tissue engineering approaches were originally focused on regenerative medicine (Langer and Vacanti, 1993) . In contrast to standard monolayer cell cultures, tissue models much more closely resemble the 3D architecture, cellular composition, and matrix complexity of the respective organ. In recent years tissue engineering was also successfully employed in a number of studies in infectious diseases, including Zika virus infections of cerebral organoids (Lancaster et al., 2013; Dang et al., 2016) , Helicobacter pylori infections of gastric epithelial organoids (McCracken et al., 2014; Schlaermann et al., 2016) , Escherichia coli and Rotavirus infections of gastrointestinal and small intestinal enteroids (Saxena et al., 2015; VanDussen et al., 2015) , Entamoeba histolytica or Hepatitis B virus infections of hepatic sinusoid tissue (Petropolis et al., 2014 (Petropolis et al., , 2016 , group A and G streptococcal or staphylococcal infections of skin tissue models Mairpady Shambat et al., 2016) , and staphylococcal and Andes hantavirus infections of human lung tissue (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015; Sundstrom et al., 2016) . The adaptability of these tissue-engineered models to multiple pathogens suggests a great potential for studies of infectious diseases. For instance, the lung tissue model relevant for pneumonia consists of lung fibroblasts embedded in a collagen matrix with a stratified epithelial layer on top (Nguyen Hoang et al., 2012) . The engineered tissue is suitable for implanting and studying immune cells, including dendritic cells, monocytes, macrophages, and even peripheral blood mononuclear cells (Nguyen Hoang et al., 2012; Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . A recent publication demonstrated a two-hit-event of lung pathology in staphylococcal necrotizing pneumonia (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . While the α-toxin had direct damaging effect on the lung epithelium, PVL induced lung pathology indirectly through the lysis of neutrophils (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . All the studies mentioned above highlight a significant progress in the field of infectious diseases not only from a scientific point of view but also by contributing to the three R principle of animal experimentation (Russell, 1995) .
On these terms, the use of cultured ex vivo human organ biopsies, which are rare due to ethical considerations, is an additional option to study host-pathogen interactions. This ex vivo system may overcome even the limitations of the engineered tissue. In recent years human ex vivo lung tissue infections with various microorganisms, including pneumococci (Szymanski et al., 2012; Fatykhova et al., 2015) , Bacillus anthracis (Chakrabarty et al., 2007) , Haemophilus influenzae (Zhang et al., 2016) , and IAV (Nicholls et al., 2007; Chan et al., 2009) , were performed. In the human setting, most of the work focused on tropism, severity of infections, release of inflammatory mediators, and replication rates of the microorganisms. In addition, recently also experiments on swine influenza virus (SIV) and S. suis co-infections of the porcine ex vivo lung slices were reported. Meng and colleagues showed that SIV promotes subsequent bacterial infections in a two-step process of which the first initial step was dependent on capsule expression, whereas the second step of bacterial invasion into deeper layers was capsuleindependent and required virus-mediated damage (Meng et al., 2015) . However, this is just a beginning and more investigations are needed to unravel the complexity underlying these highly invasive infections.
In summary, bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract are highly lethal and present a dramatic burden for the global health system. The synergy between bacterial and viral infectious agents is related to a variety of factors, including epithelial barrier damage, exaggerated innate immune response, and cytokine storm. Despite many advances in recent years, more knowledge on mechanisms and immunology of disease progression is needed. The synergistic mechanisms between viruses and bacteria leading to enhanced morbidity and mortality are poorly understood. In vivo characterizations of these severe infections are mainly performed in mice which poorly resemble the human physiology and immune system. Several efforts have been made to establish other models, including ferrets, guinea pigs, rabbits, rats, and non-human primates. However, all have limitations. Here, we suggest using the porcine model, which provides obvious advantages in studies of human infectious diseases and should be considered much more frequent for future studies on severe infectious diseases, including pneumonia. | What enhances the expression of type I interferon? | 5,178 | The subsequent infection with Gram-positive bacteria | 19,589 |
1,664 | Port d’Entrée for Respiratory Infections – Does the Influenza A Virus Pave the Way for Bacteria?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5742597/
SHA: ee0050c6fb81a4067d134010d0c80d21edb5df0b
Authors: Siemens, Nikolai; Oehmcke-Hecht, Sonja; Mettenleiter, Thomas C.; Kreikemeyer, Bernd; Valentin-Weigand, Peter; Hammerschmidt, Sven
Date: 2017-12-21
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02602
License: cc-by
Abstract: Bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract are life-threatening and present a global burden to the global community. Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus pyogenes are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract. Imbalances through acquisition of seasonal viruses, e.g., Influenza A virus, can lead to bacterial dissemination to the lower respiratory tract, which in turn can result in severe pneumonia. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract and focus on potential experimental models suitable for mimicking this disease. Transmission of IAV and pneumonia is mainly modeled by mouse infection. Few studies utilizing ferrets, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and non-human primates are also available. The knowledge gained from these studies led to important discoveries and advances in understanding these infectious diseases. Nevertheless, mouse and other infection models have limitations, especially in translation of the discoveries to humans. Here, we suggest the use of human engineered lung tissue, human ex vivo lung tissue, and porcine models to study respiratory co-infections, which might contribute to a greater translation of the results to humans and improve both, animal and human health.
Text: In recent years the human microbiota is more and more recognized to play a crucial role in pathogenesis of many diseases (Weinstock, 2012) . The upper respiratory tract is a natural niche for potentially pathogenic bacteria embedded in commensal communities forming the nasopharyngeal microbiome. In particular, the microbial communities of the nasopharynx (Hilty et al., 2012) are associated with respiratory diseases, i.e., severe pneumonia, which are responsible for substantial mortality and morbidity in humans worldwide (Prina et al., 2016) . The composition of the nasopharyngeal microbiome is highly dynamic (Biesbroek et al., 2014a,b,c) and many factors, including environmental and host factors, can affect microbial colonization (Koppen et al., 2015) . Recent studies on neonates have shown that the respiratory microbiota develops from initially maternally transmitted mixed flora with predominance of Streptococcus viridans species to niche-specific bacterial profiles containing mostly Staphylococcus aureus at around 1 week of age (Bosch et al., 2016a) . Between 2 weeks and 6 months after birth, the staphylococcal predominance declines and colonization with Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococci) as a predominant pathobiont emerges (Miller et al., 2011; Bosch et al., 2016a,b) . The dynamic microbiome composition is guaranteed through the interplay between bacterial species, other microbes, and changing environmental conditions, as well as host-bacteria interactions (Blaser and Falkow, 2009 ). Most of the time, the microbiome and its interplay with the human host are believed to be beneficial for both (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Murphy et al., 2009 ). However, imbalances in microbial composition can lead to acquisition of new viral or bacterial species and invasion of potential pathogens, which in turn can become detrimental, especially in elderly people and children with an exhausted or immature immune system (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Blaser and Falkow, 2009; Murphy et al., 2009) .
One particular example showing imbalances introduced by single dosage of antibiotics was demonstrated by Ichinohe and colleagues (Ichinohe et al., 2011) . While commensal respiratory microbiota facilitated immune-support against Influenza A virus infection (IAV), oral treatment with antibiotics resulted not only in a shift of bacterial composition, but also in impaired CD4 T-, CD8 T-, and B-cell immunity following infection with IAV in mice (Ichinohe et al., 2011) . Analyses of human oropharyngeal microbiomes during the 2009 H1N1 IAV pandemic revealed that at the phylum level, the abundance of Fermicutes and Proteobacteria was augmented in pneumonia patients as compared to healthy controls (Leung et al., 2013) . However, another study published in the same year contradicted these results (Chaban et al., 2013) . Chaban and colleagues analyzed microbiomes of 65 patients from H1N1 IAV outbreak in 2009. Although the phylogenetic composition of pneumonia patients was dominated by Fermicutes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria, no significant differences between the patients and healthy controls or any other variables tested, including age and gender, were observed (Chaban et al., 2013) .
In this review we discuss secondary bacterial infections of the respiratory tract after primary infection by IAV with a focus on mechanisms by which these interactions are potentially mediated, and we will provide insight into the host contribution and immunological consequences. We further focus on potential animal models suitable for mimicking asymptomatic bacterial colonization and disease progression and thus, enabling to study adaptation strategies, viral-bacterial interactions, and immune responses in these highly lethal co-infections.
Influenza A viruses belong to the family of Orthomyxoviridae and based on the antigenicity of their haemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) they are classified into 16 classical HA and 9 classical NA subtypes (Neumann et al., 2009) . The 8-segmented genomes of influenza A viruses are characterized by a significant plasticity. Due to point mutations and re-assortment events new variants or strains with epidemic or pandemic potential emerge (Neumann et al., 2009 ). In addition, influenza can be transmitted between animals, including swine, birds, horses, and humans, making it a zoonotic disease (van der Meer et al., 2010) . Seasonal influenza usually resolves without consequences in healthy individuals. However, it is estimated that seasonal influenza effects 5-10% of the world's population resulting in about 250,000 to 500,000 deaths annually (Tjon-Kon-Fat et al., 2016) . At greater risk to develop secondary bacterial pneumonia are individuals with comorbidities, elderly people (age > 65), pregnant women, and children under the age of one (Rothberg et al., 2008) .
For a long time it was considered that the H1N1 strain, an avian-like H1N1 virus, directly caused most of the fatalities during the 1918-1919 pandemic (Spanish Flu), often from a hemorrhagic pneumonitis rapidly progressing to acute respiratory distress syndrome and death (Osterholm, 2005; Gerberding, 2006; Oxford et al., 2006) . The pandemic killed around 50 million people worldwide and remains unique in its severity compared to other big outbreaks. However, many of the findings have been reinterpreted in recent years (Brundage and Shanks, 2007; Chien et al., 2009) . It is estimated that around 95% of all severe cases and deaths were attributed to secondary infections with bacterial pathogens, most predominantly by Streptococcus pneumoniae (Morens et al., 2008) . Individual studies limited to certain regions identified also other pathogens commonly colonizing the respiratory tract, including Staphylococcus aureus, group A streptococcus (GAS) and Haemophilus influenzae (Brundage and Shanks, 2008) . During the next two pandemics (H2N2 Asian Flu 1957 and H3N2 Hong Kong Flu 1968 −1969 bacterial co-infections were less likely the cause of death compared to the Spanish Flu (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957; Trotter et al., 1959) . Still, pneumonia accounted for about 44% of deaths during the Asian Flu (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957) . Most fatalities resulting from pneumonia occurred in individuals with chronic conditions, i.e., chronic lung diseases, rheumatic carditis, and hypertension (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957) . In 1957-1958, S. aureus was predominantly isolated from fatal pneumonia cases (Hers et al., 1957 (Hers et al., , 1958 Robertson et al., 1958; Martin et al., 1959) , whereas S. pneumoniae returned as predominant cause of severe pneumonia during the Hong Kong Flu (Sharrar, 1969; Bisno et al., 1971; Burk et al., 1971; Schwarzmann et al., 1971) . Forty years later in 2009, a novel H1N1 virus of swine origin emerged and caused again a pandemic (Dawood et al., 2009 (Dawood et al., , 2012 . In contrast to Asian and Hong Kong Flu, mortality rates were rather low, but most deaths occurred in healthy young individuals with no underlying conditions (Reichert et al., 2010; Monsalvo et al., 2011; Dawood et al., 2012) . About 25-50% of severe or fatal cases were linked to complications due to bacterial pneumonia (Dominguez-Cherit et al., 2009; Estenssoro et al., 2010; Mauad et al., 2010; Shieh et al., 2010 ). Although regional variations occurred, pneumococci and S. aureus were the most frequently isolated bacterial species (Mauad et al., 2010; Shieh et al., 2010; Rice et al., 2012) . Group A streptococcus was absent in many local pneumonia outbreaks associated with viruses, but was predominant in others (Brundage and Shanks, 2008; Ampofo et al., 2010) . When it does appear, it is typically third in incidence (Chaussee et al., 2011) . Overall, data on pandemic outbreaks suggest that disease severity and mortality can be linked to secondary bacterial pathogens with variations depending on regions and state of immunity of the population (Brundage and Shanks, 2008; Shanks et al., 2010 Shanks et al., , 2011 McCullers, 2013) .
There is increasing evidence that the nasopharyngeal microbiota plays an important role in the pathogenesis of acute viral respiratory infections (Teo et al., 2015; de Steenhuijsen Piters et al., 2016; Rosas-Salazar et al., 2016a,b) . Respiratory viruses, including IAV, have been shown to alter bacterial adherence and colonization leading to an increased risk of secondary bacterial infections (Tregoning and Schwarze, 2010) . Pneumococci, S. aureus, and GAS are important human Gram-positive pathogens. All of them are frequent colonizers of the human nasopharynx and they share many features including pathogenic mechanisms and clinical aspects (Figure 1) . However, they also have unique properties.
Staphylococcus aureus colonizes persistently about 30% of the human population and typical niches include nares, axillae, and skin (Peacock et al., 2001; von Eiff et al., 2001; van Belkum et al., 2009) . They cause a variety of clinical manifestations ranging from mild skin infections to fatal necrotizing pneumonia. In the last decades, the pathogen became resistant to an increasing number of antibiotics and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is now a major cause of hospital acquired infections (Hartman and Tomasz, 1984; Ubukata et al., 1989; Zetola et al., 2005) . Also the rise of community-acquired S. aureus strains is of special concern, because certain clones are associated with very severe infections (Rasigade et al., 2010) . Recent prospective studies demonstrated an increase in proportion of communityacquired methicillin-sensitive S. aureus in severe pneumonia cases (McCaskill et al., 2007; Sicot et al., 2013) .
The pneumococcus is a typical colonizer of the human nasopharynx. About 20-50% of healthy children and 8-30% of healthy adults are asymptomatically colonized (McCullers, 2006) . Pneumococci cause diseases ranging from mild, i.e., sinusitis, conjunctivitis, and otitis media, to more severe and potentially life-threatening infections, including communityacquired pneumonia, bacteraemia, and meningitis (Bogaert et al., 2004; Valles et al., 2016) . This bacterium is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates in risk groups such as immunocompromised individuals, children, and elderly (Black et al., 2010; Valles et al., 2016) .
Group A streptococci colonize the mouth and upper respiratory tract in about 2-5% of world's population (Okumura and Nizet, 2014) . The most common, non-invasive and mild infections caused by GAS are tonsillitis and pharyngitis with estimated 600 million cases per year (Carapetis et al., 2005) .
Listed as number nine in the list of global killers with around 500,000 deaths annually (Carapetis et al., 2005) , it is obvious that this pathogen can cause severe invasive infections, including pneumonia, sepsis, streptococcal toxic shock syndrome, and necrotizing skin infections (Cunningham, 2000; Carapetis et al., 2005) .
Although all three pathogens are able to cause highly lethal diseases, the most fatal remains the pneumococcus, estimated to cause ca. 10% of all deaths in children below 5 years of age (O'Brien et al., 2009) , in the elderly (Marrie et al., 2017) , and in immuno-compromised individuals (Baxter et al., 2016) .
Influenza A virus binds via HA to either α2,3or α2,6-linked sialic acid at the surface of epithelial cells of the upper and lower respiratory tract (Webster et al., 1992) . Seasonal strains show usually affinity to α2,6-linked sialic acids that are expressed in the human trachea, whereas avian-like viruses preferentially bind to α2,3-linked sialic acids of alveolar type II cells (Shinya et al., 2006; van Riel et al., 2007 van Riel et al., , 2010 . The release of viral genomic RNA into the cytosol activates different immune response pathways. Binding of viral RNA to retinoic acid inducible gene 1 induces the expression of type I and III interferons and activates transcription factor NF-κB, which in turn activates the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines (Durbin et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) . In addition, inflammasome activation leads to the release of IL-1β and IL-18 (Pothlichet et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) . All these responses are supposed to promote viral clearance. However, the presence of viral proteins during infection induces also direct activation of the intrinsic or indirectly the activation of the extrinsic apoptotic pathway via production of inflammatory cytokines, resulting in apoptosis or even necrosis of the epithelium (Korteweg and Gu, 2008) . Furthermore, aberrant coagulation induced by virus infection causes a hyper-inflammatory response (Yang and Tang, 2016) . All these events contribute to lung tissue injury (Imai et al., 2008; Davidson et al., 2014) . The epithelial damage due to viral replication provides a beneficial environment for initial bacterial attachment (Plotkowski et al., 1993) . On the other hand, already colonized bacteria might enhance influenza virus virulence either by directly secreting proteases that cleave and activate HA (Figure 2 ) (Bottcher-Friebertshauser et al., 2013) or, indirectly, by activating host proteases such as plasminogen, which increases replication rates and infectivity of the virus (Scheiblauer et al., 1992; Tse and Whittaker, 2015) .
Potentially pathogenic bacteria, including the three species mentioned above, express an arsenal of virulence factors responsible for attachment to human host structures. Microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules FIGURE 1 | Potential models to study bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract. S. pneumoniae, S. aureus, S. pyogenes, and S. suis are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract. Seasonal IAV infection can lead to an increased risk of secondary bacterial infections, i.e., pneumonia. Several experimental models can be used for studying these severe infections. Patient samples, including ex vivo lung tissue are materials of choice, but they are rare due to ethical considerations. Tissue engineering approaches closely resemble the 3D architecture, cellular composition, and matrix complexity of the respective organ and were proven as useful tool to study infectious diseases. In vivo bacterial and viral co-infections are mainly performed in mice, which does not necessarily resemble the human physiology and immune system. Thus, we suggest using the porcine model, which nearly resembles over 80% of the human immune system.
(MSCRAMMs), such as PspC, PspA, and PsaA in pneumococci (Hammerschmidt, 2006) , SPA, FnbA, ClfA, and ClfB in S. aureus (Bartlett and Hulten, 2010; Otto, 2010) , and M-protein, PrtF1, and PrtF2 in GAS (Cunningham, 2000) , respectively, and socalled moon-lightning proteins expressed by all three species, e.g., GAPDH, enolase or PGK (Fulde et al., 2013) , enable the bacteria to attach to damaged cells or molecules of the extracellular matrix, including fibronectin, fibrin, fibrinogen, and collagens, or fibrinolytic proteins like plasminogen (McCullers and Rehg, 2002; Bergmann and Hammerschmidt, 2007; Linke et al., 2012; Siemens et al., 2012; Voss et al., 2012) . Once the initial attachment occurs, bacterial cytotoxins including pneumolysin of pneumococci (Garcia-Suarez Mdel et al., 2007; Zahlten et al., 2015) , α-hemolysin and leukocidins of S. aureus (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) , and Streptolysins S and O and Streptococcal pyrogenic exotoxin B of S. pyogenes (Tsai et al., 1998; Gurel et al., 2013; Siemens et al., 2015 Siemens et al., , 2016 , can synergize with viral counterparts to further increase lung tissue pathology. Additional potential mechanisms by which the initial colonization of the lower respiratory tract and lung tissue damage might occur include potentiation of the development of pneumonia by IAV neuraminidase through enzymatic removal of sialic acid from the lung, thus exposing host receptors for pneumococcal adherence (McCullers and Bartmess, 2003) . The host inflammatory state in response to viral infection can alter presentation of receptors on the surface, thus allowing bacterial invasion (Cundell and Tuomanen, 1994) . As the patient begins to recover from viral infection, secondary bacterial infections might occur (Louria et al., 1959) due to the incomplete wound healing and exposure of host membrane components, including laminin, collagens type I and IV to classical bacterial MSCRAMMs (Louria et al., 1959; Puchelle et al., 2006) .
Epithelial cells are the first responders to infections in the lung, followed by the tissue resident alveolar macrophages. They promote viral clearance via phagocytosis, efferocytosis, and release of cytokines and chemokines to promote immune responses (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Kumagai et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2012; Hillaire et al., 2013) . Respiratory viruses like IAV are able to induce suppression and killing of the resident alveolar macrophages (Figure 2 ) (Ghoneim et al., 2013) . These cells are usually replaced by differentiation of recruited blood derived monocytes into macrophages of different polarization patterns. This in turn creates a delay in pathogen clearance and opens a window for host susceptibility to secondary bacterial infections, colloquially named superinfections (Ghoneim et al., 2013) . In addition, induction of interferons as a response to viral infection compromises the immune sensing of Gram-positive bacteria by neutrophils and macrophages, which would normally clear the bacteria from the lungs (Figure 2 ) (Sun and Metzger, 2008; Tian et al., 2012) . The exact mechanism underlying this phenomenon is still not understood. Several studies suggested that viral RNA activates Toll-like receptors (TLR) 2 and TLR4 and, consequently, the production of type I interferons to promote an antiviral state (Shahangian et al., 2009) . The subsequent infection with Gram-positive bacteria, e.g., pneumococci, enhances the type I interferon expression, which in turn suppresses production of the CCL2 chemokine and recruitment of macrophages (Nakamura Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org FIGURE 2 | The interplay between IAV, bacteria, and the human host. The epithelial damage due to viral replication provides a beneficial environment for bacterial (Bact.) attachment. IAV is able to induce suppression and killing of resident alveolar macrophages (AM), which in turn delays viral clearance. The release of viral RNA activates different immune response pathways resulting in cytokine storm. Type I and III interferons compromise the immune recognition of Gram-positive bacteria by neutrophils and macrophages. In addition, they might suppress natural killer cell function (NK), including release of TNF, which activates alveolar macrophages. After initial inflammation, the situation might worsen due to cellular infiltration of the lungs by neutrophils (PMN), leading to an increased degranulation and tissue damage by effector molecules, including heparin-binding protein (HBP). et al., 2011). Another study by Shahangian et al. (2009) revealed that the antiviral state leads to impaired production of neutrophil chemoattractants CXCL1 and CXCL2, which in turn promotes less effective immune responses due to attenuated neutrophil functions during the early phase of pneumococcal invasion. Other studies found that IAV exposed lungs had impaired natural killer (NK) cell responses in the airway to subsequent S. aureus infection (Small et al., 2010) . Reduced TNFα production by NK cells was identified as a crucial upstream mechanism of depressed antimicrobial activities by alveolar macrophages (Figure 2 ) (Small et al., 2010) . It seems likely that IAV NA is also able to activate host cell receptors in a TGF-β dependent manner, which in turn promotes GAS invasion and subsequent lung pathology (Li et al., 2015) . In vitro studies on the interplay between IAV-pneumococci and human dendritic cells revealed TLR3 as a crucial sensor of viral and bacterial RNA leading to enhanced IL-12p70 production, which in turn might promote an anti-viral state by upregulation of interferons (Yamamoto et al., 2004; Spelmink et al., 2016) . However, it should be noted that depending on the bacterial species the disease manifestation and underlying innate immune responses might vary (Sharma-Chawla et al., 2016) .
A lot of the experimental studies on disease mechanisms and immune responses are based on a subsequent bacterial infection within hours or a few days post IAV infection. However, bacterial infiltrations of the lungs might occur much later, i.e., during the onset of wound healing after partial clearance of IAV, which has been reported in most studies performed in recent years (Snelgrove et al., 2008; Hussell and Cavanagh, 2009 ). These processes are characterized by a general anti-inflammatory state and suppression of mechanisms involved in pathogen clearance due to increased interleukin-10 production (van der Sluijs et al., 2004; Metzger and Sun, 2013) . The anti-inflammatory state suppresses the expression of pattern recognition receptors (PRR) on professional phagocytes leading to impaired phagocytosis and killing of microbes. These events might allow bacterial overgrowth in the lungs and tissue pathology (Sun and Metzger, 2008; Goulding et al., 2011) .
Like other severe infectious diseases caused by single agents, pneumonia is characterized by hyper-inflammatory conditions of the lungs at the onset of infection followed by a hypoinflammatory state with immune paralysis (Morton et al., 2014) . In co-infections, after initial inflammation in response to viral infection the situation might worsen due to bacterial invasion and enhanced cellular infiltration of the lungs by neutrophils, leading to an increased tissue damage and cytokine storm (Figure 2 ) (Conenello et al., 2007; McAuley et al., 2007 McAuley et al., , 2010 Porto and Stein, 2016) . Furthermore, the coagulation system becomes activated and contributes to the pathophysiological response to infection (van der Poll and Herwald, 2014). Bacteria like pneumococci, S. aureus, and GAS can activate and modulate the coagulation system, leading to extensive expression of tissue factor and increasing the risk of severe coagulopathy Shannon et al., 2013; Walters et al., 2016) .
Bacterial pathogens also express a variety of cytolytic toxins that can contribute to inflammation and tissue pathology. Pneumolysin, a pneumococcal pore-forming toxin with low affinity to lung epithelial cells, can damage neutrophils by utilizing P2X7 receptor (Domon et al., 2016) . Staphylococcal cytotoxins (α-toxin and leukocidins, including Panton-Valentine leucocidin, PVL) are associated with severe tissue pathology, strong upregulation of chemokines, and increased neutrophil influx of the lungs (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . GAS toxins, including SLO and SpeB, are capable of directly causing tissue damage and promoting pro-inflammatory states through neutrophil lysis (Snall et al., 2016; Uhlmann et al., 2016) . The cytolytic effects caused by bacterial toxins might synergize with the outcome of IAV cytotoxic accessory protein, PB1-F2, mediated tissue pathology leading to enhanced cytokine production (Ramos and Fernandez-Sesma, 2012) . Taken together, most likely synergistic effects of the pathways that are involved in bacterial and viral inflammation lead to enhanced immune activation and higher morbidity and mortality (Joyce et al., 2009; Koppe et al., 2012; Ramos and Fernandez-Sesma, 2012; Bucasas et al., 2013; Kuri et al., 2013) . Figure 2 summarizes the interplay between virus, bacteria, and host.
Experimental animal models are a useful tool to study in vivo effects of different infectious agents and they represent approximately 3% of all pneumonia research published in peerreview journals (Hraiech et al., 2015) . However, the constant increase of animal studies in the last decades is in contrast to their reproducibility in humans (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Hackam and colleagues identified 2,000 articles published between 1980 and 2006 in seven leading scientific journals that regularly publish animal studies (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Seventy-six out of 2,000 were highly cited with a median citation count of 889. Out of these 76 studies 28 were replicated in human randomized trials, 14 were contradicted, and 34 remained untested (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Only 1.4% of the animal studies published in high-impact journals were translated in human randomized trials (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) , whereas about 44% replication rate was reported for highly cited human studies (Ioannidis, 2005) . In pneumonia models, mammalians are mostly used because of their anatomical and physiological proximity to humans (Hraiech et al., 2015) . To monitor extensive physiological studies, larger mammalian species, including ferrets, dogs, rabbits, pigs, and baboons are the models of choice (Mizgerd and Skerrett, 2008) . However, rodents and in particular mice are used more frequently as a pneumonia model organisms. Rapid reproductive rate, small size, less complicated handling, the ability to reproduce and compare results with already published bacterial and viral mono-infections, detailed knowledge of genetics and immune responses, and a plethora of available reagents to study infections in mice are reasons for the use of these animals. To avoid variations in responses due to genetic diversity inbred mice strains are useful tools for studies aiming to elucidate molecular mechanisms of diseases. In addition, genetic engineering allowed to generate a wide variety of mouse variants with gainof-function, loss-of-function or reporter genes (Mizgerd and Skerrett, 2008) .
As outlined above, many in vivo mice studies on bacterial and viral co-infections provided useful insights into severe pneumonia, including (i) the fact that viral infection primes the host for bacterial susceptibility leading to severe secondary infection (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Shahangian et al., 2009; Chaussee et al., 2011; Nakamura et al., 2011) , (ii) pathogen synergism (Tsai et al., 1998; McCullers and Rehg, 2002; Garcia-Suarez Mdel et al., 2007; Gurel et al., 2013; Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015; Zahlten et al., 2015) , (iii) enhanced inflammatory response at the onset of infection (Korteweg and Gu, 2008; Durbin et al., 2013; Pothlichet et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) leading to increased alveolar damage followed by immune paralysis with defective clearance of microorganisms (Shinya et al., 2006; van Riel et al., 2007 van Riel et al., , 2010 , and (iv) host receptor availability for sustained bacterial infection (Louria et al., 1959; Plotkowski et al., 1993; Cundell and Tuomanen, 1994; Puchelle et al., 2006; Korteweg and Gu, 2008) . However, mouse models for bacterial and/or viral infections have several limitations. Most of the bacterial and viral species under study are human pathogens. In recent years it was also shown that host genetic variations and sex differences have an impact on predisposition, severity, and outcome of infection (Chella Krishnan et al., 2015 While C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice are characterized by a higher resistance, DBA/2 strains are more susceptible and permissive to bacterial and viral strains (Alymova et al., 2011; Chella Krishnan et al., 2015 . In addition, transmission of IAV and bacteria is inefficient in adult mice, thus requiring alternative animal models, including neonatal mice or ferrets (Diavatopoulos et al., 2010; McCullers et al., 2010) . IAV was shown to be essential for pneumococcal transmission from colonized mice to their naive littermates and the transmission occurred only when all mice were infected with IAV (Diavatopoulos et al., 2010) . et al., 2010) . Ferrets are naturally susceptible to IAV isolated from different species, including humans, birds, and swine (Thangavel and Bouvier, 2014) . The infection of ferrets with human seasonal IAV isolates results in an upper respiratory tract infection similar to human influenza infection (Tripp and Tompkins, 2009) . In contrast to mice, non-adapted human IAV can be used for the infection. Unfortunately, there are only few reports on bacterial and IAV co-infections in this model organism. A report by Sanford and Ramsay showed enhanced staphylococcal colonization of the upper respiratory tract in IAV infected animals as compared to non-infected, while no difference between both groups was observed in group B streptococcal infection (Sanford and Ramsay, 1987) . In contrast, Smith and Mc Cullers reported lack of establishment of staphylococcal infection even when ferrets were pre-infected with IAV (Smith and McCullers, 2014) . The biggest advantages of using ferrets as a model include (i) their susceptibility to nonadapted human pathogens, (ii) efficiency in transmitting IAV and bacteria from one individual to another, and (iii) presentation of the clinical signs of disease manifestation akin to human influenza infection. Unfortunately, their limited availability, complex husbandry, and limited accessibility to ferret-specific reagents makes this research difficult to perform (Bouvier and Lowen, 2010) .
In recent years, the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) was also used in pneumonia research. The physiology and anatomy of the guinea pig lung resembles to a certain extent the human lung and this model organism is often used in non-infectious lung diseases, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Canning and Chou, 2008) . In addition, its commercial availability, ease of husbandry, the ability to work with nonadapted pathogens and the efficiency of transmission are reasons for using this in vivo model (Bouvier and Lowen, 2010) . Guinea pigs are susceptible to human, avian, and swine influenza viruses. Although viral replication can be readily detected upon intranasal inoculation in the upper respiratory tract and the lungs, guinea pigs exhibit only minor clinical symptoms (Lowen et al., 2006; Gabbard et al., 2014) . However, the lung pathology of human IAV infected guinea pigs correlates with the clinical severity of human infection (Gabbard et al., 2014) . Transmission of pneumococci in guinea pigs is promoted by co-infection with Sendai virus (Saito et al., 1988) . Guinea pigs infected with pneumococci alone and cage-mated with non-treated contact animals transmitted the bacteria only in 7% of cases, while Sendai-virus infected, co-housed guinea pigs acquired pneumococcal infection in 83% of contacts (Saito et al., 1988) . Another study evaluated antibiotic efficacy in invasive pulmonary infection caused by penicillin resistant pneumococcus (Ponte et al., 1996) . Intratracheal instillation of 3 × 10 9 CFU of S. pneumoniae induced a fatal pneumonia and bacteremia in 85% of untreated animals within 46 h (Ponte et al., 1996) . As with ferrets, there is a paucity of data describing immune responses to pulmonary infectious agents. This is in parts due to the lack of species specific reagents, which is a disadvantage in using this model organism.
Recently, the cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) was reported to be susceptible to IAV. Nasal and pulmonary infection in adult inbred cotton rats did not require viral adaptation (Ottolini et al., 2005) . The infection led to increased breathing rates accompanied by weight loss and decreased body temperature. Replication of IAV was more extensive in nasal tissues than the lung, and persisted for six consecutive days. Tissue pathology included damage of bronchiolar epithelium and the animals developed pneumonia which persisted for nearly 3 weeks (Ottolini et al., 2005) . In bacteriological studies rats are more frequently used. There are numerous rat models investigating the impact of diabetes (Oliveira et al., 2016) , metabolic syndromes (Feng et al., 2015) , cirrhosis , pharmaco-kinetics and dynamics (Antonopoulou et al., 2015; Hoover et al., 2015) , intoxication (Davis et al., 1991) , immunization (Iinuma and Okinaga, 1989) , and general bacterial virulence factors (Shanley et al., 1996) on development of pneumococcal, streptococcal, and staphylococcal pneumonia and lung pathology. Unfortunately, there are only few studies on bacterial and viral co-infections in rats. The first was performed by Harford et al., 1946 (Harford et al., 1946 . The authors concluded that the secondary bacterial pneumonia does not convert the sub-lethal viral infection to a lethal outcome (Harford et al., 1946) . Another study on human respiratory syncytial virus and S. pneumoniae revealed that rats were easily colonized with pneumococci, but viral replication after subsequent infection was strain dependent. In addition, neither pneumococci nor the virus spread from the upper to the lower respiratory tract, and neither pathogen was transmitted to naive cage mates . Although rats share a lot of immune features with humans, including nitric oxide production by macrophages (Carsillo et al., 2009) , the biggest disadvantages are low animal availability, aggressiveness of the species, and the lack of specific reagents.
Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) are well known for their use in studying cardiovascular diseases, antibody production, and eye research. Rabbits were also employed to study pneumonia, although only a few models are available. Typical read-out parameters include survival, leukocyte infiltration of the lungs, lung pathology, and assessment of drug concentration in serum. One of the first studies on pneumococcal pneumonia in rabbits was performed in Kline and Winternitz (1913) . This study revealed that rabbits possess an active immunity if they have recovered from one attack of experimental pneumonia and they may subsequently resist repeated intra-tracheal dosages of pneumococci (Kline and Winternitz, 1913) . In 1926 an infection by inhalation of Type I pneumococci was established in rabbits (Stillman and Branch, 1926) . The bacteria infiltrated easily the lower respiratory tract and pneumococci which reached the lungs usually disappeared within hours and fatal septicemia appeared in some of the animals (Stillman and Branch, 1926) . Most recent rabbit models of pneumococcal and staphylococcal pneumonia are based on intra-bronchial or intra-pulmonary infections which make them useful for pathogenesis (Diep et al., 2010 (Diep et al., , 2017 , as well as drug efficiency and efficacy studies (Cabellos et al., 1992; Croisier-Bertin et al., 2011) . However, this infection route requires surgery and species-specific reagents are scarce. In IAV research rabbits are frequently used for antibody production and for studies on antibody kinetics following single or multiple IAV administrations (Loza-Tulimowska et al., 1977) . Also, rabbits are used for safety investigations of vaccines (e.g., CoVaccine HT or Aflunov) (Heldens et al., 2010; Gasparini et al., 2012) . In recent years the shedding of avian IAV by cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.) was investigated revealing that nasally and orally inoculated cottontails shed relatively large quantities of viral RNA (Root et al., 2014) . Notably, low viral titers were found to be sufficient to initiate viral replication in cottontails (Root et al., 2017) . However, despite their susceptibility to IAV infection, rabbits are only rarely used as model for IAV pathogenesis since they offer no improvement over other established infection models.
Macaques represent the major non-human primate for studying infectious diseases. They are omnivorous and adaptable. The species most commonly used are rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) and cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fasciluraris).
Although it was shown early that macaques were susceptible to IAV (Saslaw et al., 1946) , the animal models of choice remained ferrets and mice. Recently, macaques have been used to compare the pathogenesis of highly virulent 1918 pandemic IAV and the pathogenic bird flu strain (H5N1) with a conventional H1N1 strain (Rimmelzwaan et al., 2001) . Cynomolgus macaques infected with highly pathogenic H5N1 developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, fever, and necrotizing pneumonia (Rimmelzwaan et al., 2001) . The 1918 IAV strain induced dysregulation of the antiviral response leading to insufficient protection of the host, which in turn resulted in acute respiratory distress and a fatal outcome (Kobasa et al., 2007) . The 2009 pandemic H1N1 US isolate caused severe pathological lesions in the lungs of the macaques (Itoh et al., 2009 ). The three studies mentioned above used combined intratracheal delivery of high doses of virus. A recent study by Marriott et al. analyzed the outcome of challenge routes, including inhaled aerosol and intra-nasal instillation with low to moderate doses of H1N1 in cynomolgus macaques (Marriott et al., 2016) . Virus replication was detected in all challenge groups, although the disease remained sub-clinical.
In bacteriological studies non-human primates are rarely used. For group A streptococcal infection longitudinal transcriptome analyses were performed in experimental pharyngitis (Virtaneva et al., 2005) and lower respiratory tract infection in cynomolgus macaques (Olsen et al., 2010a) . The lower respiratory tract disease observed in macaques after GAS infection mimicked the clinical and pathological features of severe bronchopneumonia in humans (Olsen et al., 2010a) . Another study by Olsen and colleagues analyzed the contribution of PVL of a highly virulent USA300 S. aureus strain in respiratory infection (Olsen et al., 2010b) . Although the lower respiratory tract disease observed in monkey mimicked the clinical and pathological features of early mild to moderate pneumonia in humans, no involvement of PVL in lung pathology or immune cell influx of the lungs could be detected (Olsen et al., 2010b) . The same research group has developed a non-lethal IAV (H3N2)-S. aureus co-infection model in cynomolgus macaques (Kobayashi et al., 2013) . Pneumonia progression was monitored by clinical parameters assessment, blood chemistry, nasal swabs, and pathology of the lungs. Seasonal IAV infection in healthy cynomolgus macaques caused mild pneumonia, but did not predispose the animals to subsequent severe infection with the USA300 clone (Kobayashi et al., 2013) .
Although macaques are frequently used for evaluation of pneumococcal vaccine efficacy, including testing the impact of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine on antigen-specific memory B cell repertoires (Jia et al., 2017) , only two studies on pneumococcal carriage and pneumonia were conducted in the last decade. In 2013, Philipp and colleagues analyzed the carriage rate of pneumococcus in 158 colony animals. None of the surveyed rhesus macaques carried S. pneumoniae in the nasopharynx (Philipp et al., 2012) . The authors concluded that rhesus macaque is probably not a natural host of pneumococci. But, when infants were colonized with 19F strain via nasopharyngeal instillation, the colonization was induced in eight of eight infants, lasted for 2 weeks in all animals and for 7 weeks in more than 60% (Philipp et al., 2012) . The same group tested detoxified pneumolysin (dPly) and pneumococcal histidine triad protein D (PhtD) as potential vaccine candidates to prevent pneumonia (Denoel et al., 2011) . After immunization the rhesus macaques were challenged with a 19F pneumococcal strain. AS02-adjuvanted PhtD-dPly vaccine protected the animals against S. pneumoniae-induced pneumonia, which was linked to the capacity (i) to greatly reduce bacterial load within the first week post-challenge and (ii) the levels of PhtD-and Ply-specific antibodies (Denoel et al., 2011) . Although only a few macaque studies on pneumonia exist, due to the close proximity to humans in terms of physiology and immunity, these animals can be a good model in the context of translational studies evaluating therapeutics and prophylaxis.
Despite the wide use of different animal models, the optimal in vivo model for human pneumonia remains to be identified. Small mammals including rodents are well known from a biological, genetic, and immunological point of view and are easy to maintain. The choice of these particular animals for infectious disease studies is often a result of a compromise between technical and financial options. However, they are also far from humans' anatomy, physiology, immunology, and susceptibility to exclusively human pathogens. The experimental animal model should be chosen based on responses comparable to humans. Primates are usually legally reserved to specific topics. In this case, pigs could be an appropriate model system for studying infectious diseases including pneumonia (Figure 1) . The composition and size of the porcine genome is comparable to that of humans (Hart et al., 2007) . In addition, human and porcine organs have many common features and functions (Swindle et al., 2012) . The upper respiratory tract of humans and pigs, including the lymphoid tissue in the nasopharynx, is anatomically similar. Furthermore, like humans, pigs possess tonsils, which are absent in mice (Horter et al., 2003) . A major advantage of studying infectious diseases by utilizing pigs as a host organism is that pigs have a full set of innate and adaptive immune effectors. According to whole genome sequencing results the porcine immune system resembles over 80% of the human immune system, whereas mice share less than 10% with humans (Dawson et al., 2016) . Most of the immune cell compartments identified in humans are also present in pigs (Piriou-Guzylack and Salmon, 2008; Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In contrast to mice and similar to humans, pigs have 50-70% of circulating polymorph nuclear cells (Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In addition, all functional cytokines or orthologs involved in Th1, Th2, Th17, and Treg paradigm and corresponding immune cells have been described in pigs (Murtaugh et al., 2009; Kaser et al., 2011; Kiros et al., 2011) . Especially the very prominent human pro-inflammatory chemo-attractant, CXCL8, is present as an ortholog in pigs, whereas there is no homologue in mice (Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In contrast to human monocytes, which can be divided in three subclasses (classical CD14 + CD16 − , nonclassical CD14 + CD16 + , and intermediate CD14 ++ CD16 + ), porcine monocytes consist of four subclasses (Chamorro et al., 2005; Fairbairn et al., 2013) . Like human monocytes they express adhesion molecules, such as VLA-4 and LFA-1 and costimulatory molecules, including CD80 and CD86 (Chamorro et al., 2005) .
The pig has previously been used to mimic a number of human infectious diseases. Examples for S. aureus infections with this model organism are wound infections Svedman et al., 1989) , osteomyelitis (Jensen et al., 2010) , and sepsis (Nielsen et al., 2009) . Intravenous inoculation of piglets with pneumococci led to bacteremia during a 5 days period and was associated with fever and septic arthritis. Intranasal inoculation of piglets led to colonization for at least six consecutive days without causing clinical signs (De Greeff et al., 2016) . In addition, research on respiratory infections of pigs by human pathogens including S. aureus (Luna et al., 2009) , Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Gil et al., 2010) , Bordetella pertussis (Elahi et al., 2007) , Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Luna et al., 2009) , and IAV (Khatri et al., 2010) , was performed in recent years. The fact that pigs and humans are infected with identical subtypes of IAV (H1N1, H3N2), and show similar clinical presentation and pathogenesis, makes pigs an ideal model organism for studies on respiratory co-infections (Van Reeth et al., 1998) . Especially IAV infections are already well established in swine (Van Reeth et al., 1998 , 2002a Jung et al., 2007; Khatri et al., 2010; Barbe et al., 2011) .
In addition to the limited number of publications on pigs and human pathogens, a lot can be translated and learned from studies on the porcine zoonotic pathogen Streptococcus suis. S. suis usually inhabits mucosal surfaces of tonsils, nares, genital and alimentary tract of piglets. Once the microbial balance is disturbed, the bacteria can cause meningitis, septicemia, arthritis, and pneumonia in pigs (Staats et al., 1997) . Some S. suis strains are considered to be hyper-virulent and others hypo-or avirulent. In general, serotype 2 is most frequently isolated from diseased pigs (Staats et al., 1997) . S. suis can also cause severe diseases in humans including septicemia, meningitis, arthritis, and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (Tang et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2006; Gottschalk et al., 2007) . Although many in vivo studies on S. suis have been performed by utilizing mice as a model organism (Seitz et al., 2012; Auger et al., 2016) , several other studies have shown the advantage of using swine as a natural host for S. suis (Bi et al., 2014; Ferrando et al., 2015) . A recent publication by Lin and colleagues on H1N1 and S. suis co-infected piglets demonstrated the synergistic effects of both pathogens (Lin et al., 2015) . Co-infected piglets had more severe clinical presentation and pathological changes in the lung, as compared to animals infected with single pathogens (Lin et al., 2015) . In addition, genes associated with immune responses, inflammatory cytokine production, and apoptotic pathways were highly overexpressed in the coinfected group (Lin et al., 2015) . Although the porcine model seems to be ideal to mimic human infectious diseases, there are also disadvantages, including, e.g., requirement for specialized experimental animal facilities, time consuming management, high maintenance costs, and limited availability of transgenic animals.
Although the use of animals contributes greatly to our understanding of infectious diseases, human 3D-organotypic tissue models and ex vivo organ tissues should be considered, as they are most valuable tools to study host-pathogen interactions in a more complex setting (Figure 1) . Tissue engineering approaches were originally focused on regenerative medicine (Langer and Vacanti, 1993) . In contrast to standard monolayer cell cultures, tissue models much more closely resemble the 3D architecture, cellular composition, and matrix complexity of the respective organ. In recent years tissue engineering was also successfully employed in a number of studies in infectious diseases, including Zika virus infections of cerebral organoids (Lancaster et al., 2013; Dang et al., 2016) , Helicobacter pylori infections of gastric epithelial organoids (McCracken et al., 2014; Schlaermann et al., 2016) , Escherichia coli and Rotavirus infections of gastrointestinal and small intestinal enteroids (Saxena et al., 2015; VanDussen et al., 2015) , Entamoeba histolytica or Hepatitis B virus infections of hepatic sinusoid tissue (Petropolis et al., 2014 (Petropolis et al., , 2016 , group A and G streptococcal or staphylococcal infections of skin tissue models Mairpady Shambat et al., 2016) , and staphylococcal and Andes hantavirus infections of human lung tissue (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015; Sundstrom et al., 2016) . The adaptability of these tissue-engineered models to multiple pathogens suggests a great potential for studies of infectious diseases. For instance, the lung tissue model relevant for pneumonia consists of lung fibroblasts embedded in a collagen matrix with a stratified epithelial layer on top (Nguyen Hoang et al., 2012) . The engineered tissue is suitable for implanting and studying immune cells, including dendritic cells, monocytes, macrophages, and even peripheral blood mononuclear cells (Nguyen Hoang et al., 2012; Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . A recent publication demonstrated a two-hit-event of lung pathology in staphylococcal necrotizing pneumonia (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . While the α-toxin had direct damaging effect on the lung epithelium, PVL induced lung pathology indirectly through the lysis of neutrophils (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . All the studies mentioned above highlight a significant progress in the field of infectious diseases not only from a scientific point of view but also by contributing to the three R principle of animal experimentation (Russell, 1995) .
On these terms, the use of cultured ex vivo human organ biopsies, which are rare due to ethical considerations, is an additional option to study host-pathogen interactions. This ex vivo system may overcome even the limitations of the engineered tissue. In recent years human ex vivo lung tissue infections with various microorganisms, including pneumococci (Szymanski et al., 2012; Fatykhova et al., 2015) , Bacillus anthracis (Chakrabarty et al., 2007) , Haemophilus influenzae (Zhang et al., 2016) , and IAV (Nicholls et al., 2007; Chan et al., 2009) , were performed. In the human setting, most of the work focused on tropism, severity of infections, release of inflammatory mediators, and replication rates of the microorganisms. In addition, recently also experiments on swine influenza virus (SIV) and S. suis co-infections of the porcine ex vivo lung slices were reported. Meng and colleagues showed that SIV promotes subsequent bacterial infections in a two-step process of which the first initial step was dependent on capsule expression, whereas the second step of bacterial invasion into deeper layers was capsuleindependent and required virus-mediated damage (Meng et al., 2015) . However, this is just a beginning and more investigations are needed to unravel the complexity underlying these highly invasive infections.
In summary, bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract are highly lethal and present a dramatic burden for the global health system. The synergy between bacterial and viral infectious agents is related to a variety of factors, including epithelial barrier damage, exaggerated innate immune response, and cytokine storm. Despite many advances in recent years, more knowledge on mechanisms and immunology of disease progression is needed. The synergistic mechanisms between viruses and bacteria leading to enhanced morbidity and mortality are poorly understood. In vivo characterizations of these severe infections are mainly performed in mice which poorly resemble the human physiology and immune system. Several efforts have been made to establish other models, including ferrets, guinea pigs, rabbits, rats, and non-human primates. However, all have limitations. Here, we suggest using the porcine model, which provides obvious advantages in studies of human infectious diseases and should be considered much more frequent for future studies on severe infectious diseases, including pneumonia. | What reduces the antimicrobial activities of alveolar macrophages? | 5,179 | Reduced TNFα production by NK cells | 21,220 |
1,664 | Port d’Entrée for Respiratory Infections – Does the Influenza A Virus Pave the Way for Bacteria?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5742597/
SHA: ee0050c6fb81a4067d134010d0c80d21edb5df0b
Authors: Siemens, Nikolai; Oehmcke-Hecht, Sonja; Mettenleiter, Thomas C.; Kreikemeyer, Bernd; Valentin-Weigand, Peter; Hammerschmidt, Sven
Date: 2017-12-21
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02602
License: cc-by
Abstract: Bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract are life-threatening and present a global burden to the global community. Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus pyogenes are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract. Imbalances through acquisition of seasonal viruses, e.g., Influenza A virus, can lead to bacterial dissemination to the lower respiratory tract, which in turn can result in severe pneumonia. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract and focus on potential experimental models suitable for mimicking this disease. Transmission of IAV and pneumonia is mainly modeled by mouse infection. Few studies utilizing ferrets, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and non-human primates are also available. The knowledge gained from these studies led to important discoveries and advances in understanding these infectious diseases. Nevertheless, mouse and other infection models have limitations, especially in translation of the discoveries to humans. Here, we suggest the use of human engineered lung tissue, human ex vivo lung tissue, and porcine models to study respiratory co-infections, which might contribute to a greater translation of the results to humans and improve both, animal and human health.
Text: In recent years the human microbiota is more and more recognized to play a crucial role in pathogenesis of many diseases (Weinstock, 2012) . The upper respiratory tract is a natural niche for potentially pathogenic bacteria embedded in commensal communities forming the nasopharyngeal microbiome. In particular, the microbial communities of the nasopharynx (Hilty et al., 2012) are associated with respiratory diseases, i.e., severe pneumonia, which are responsible for substantial mortality and morbidity in humans worldwide (Prina et al., 2016) . The composition of the nasopharyngeal microbiome is highly dynamic (Biesbroek et al., 2014a,b,c) and many factors, including environmental and host factors, can affect microbial colonization (Koppen et al., 2015) . Recent studies on neonates have shown that the respiratory microbiota develops from initially maternally transmitted mixed flora with predominance of Streptococcus viridans species to niche-specific bacterial profiles containing mostly Staphylococcus aureus at around 1 week of age (Bosch et al., 2016a) . Between 2 weeks and 6 months after birth, the staphylococcal predominance declines and colonization with Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococci) as a predominant pathobiont emerges (Miller et al., 2011; Bosch et al., 2016a,b) . The dynamic microbiome composition is guaranteed through the interplay between bacterial species, other microbes, and changing environmental conditions, as well as host-bacteria interactions (Blaser and Falkow, 2009 ). Most of the time, the microbiome and its interplay with the human host are believed to be beneficial for both (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Murphy et al., 2009 ). However, imbalances in microbial composition can lead to acquisition of new viral or bacterial species and invasion of potential pathogens, which in turn can become detrimental, especially in elderly people and children with an exhausted or immature immune system (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Blaser and Falkow, 2009; Murphy et al., 2009) .
One particular example showing imbalances introduced by single dosage of antibiotics was demonstrated by Ichinohe and colleagues (Ichinohe et al., 2011) . While commensal respiratory microbiota facilitated immune-support against Influenza A virus infection (IAV), oral treatment with antibiotics resulted not only in a shift of bacterial composition, but also in impaired CD4 T-, CD8 T-, and B-cell immunity following infection with IAV in mice (Ichinohe et al., 2011) . Analyses of human oropharyngeal microbiomes during the 2009 H1N1 IAV pandemic revealed that at the phylum level, the abundance of Fermicutes and Proteobacteria was augmented in pneumonia patients as compared to healthy controls (Leung et al., 2013) . However, another study published in the same year contradicted these results (Chaban et al., 2013) . Chaban and colleagues analyzed microbiomes of 65 patients from H1N1 IAV outbreak in 2009. Although the phylogenetic composition of pneumonia patients was dominated by Fermicutes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria, no significant differences between the patients and healthy controls or any other variables tested, including age and gender, were observed (Chaban et al., 2013) .
In this review we discuss secondary bacterial infections of the respiratory tract after primary infection by IAV with a focus on mechanisms by which these interactions are potentially mediated, and we will provide insight into the host contribution and immunological consequences. We further focus on potential animal models suitable for mimicking asymptomatic bacterial colonization and disease progression and thus, enabling to study adaptation strategies, viral-bacterial interactions, and immune responses in these highly lethal co-infections.
Influenza A viruses belong to the family of Orthomyxoviridae and based on the antigenicity of their haemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) they are classified into 16 classical HA and 9 classical NA subtypes (Neumann et al., 2009) . The 8-segmented genomes of influenza A viruses are characterized by a significant plasticity. Due to point mutations and re-assortment events new variants or strains with epidemic or pandemic potential emerge (Neumann et al., 2009 ). In addition, influenza can be transmitted between animals, including swine, birds, horses, and humans, making it a zoonotic disease (van der Meer et al., 2010) . Seasonal influenza usually resolves without consequences in healthy individuals. However, it is estimated that seasonal influenza effects 5-10% of the world's population resulting in about 250,000 to 500,000 deaths annually (Tjon-Kon-Fat et al., 2016) . At greater risk to develop secondary bacterial pneumonia are individuals with comorbidities, elderly people (age > 65), pregnant women, and children under the age of one (Rothberg et al., 2008) .
For a long time it was considered that the H1N1 strain, an avian-like H1N1 virus, directly caused most of the fatalities during the 1918-1919 pandemic (Spanish Flu), often from a hemorrhagic pneumonitis rapidly progressing to acute respiratory distress syndrome and death (Osterholm, 2005; Gerberding, 2006; Oxford et al., 2006) . The pandemic killed around 50 million people worldwide and remains unique in its severity compared to other big outbreaks. However, many of the findings have been reinterpreted in recent years (Brundage and Shanks, 2007; Chien et al., 2009) . It is estimated that around 95% of all severe cases and deaths were attributed to secondary infections with bacterial pathogens, most predominantly by Streptococcus pneumoniae (Morens et al., 2008) . Individual studies limited to certain regions identified also other pathogens commonly colonizing the respiratory tract, including Staphylococcus aureus, group A streptococcus (GAS) and Haemophilus influenzae (Brundage and Shanks, 2008) . During the next two pandemics (H2N2 Asian Flu 1957 and H3N2 Hong Kong Flu 1968 −1969 bacterial co-infections were less likely the cause of death compared to the Spanish Flu (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957; Trotter et al., 1959) . Still, pneumonia accounted for about 44% of deaths during the Asian Flu (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957) . Most fatalities resulting from pneumonia occurred in individuals with chronic conditions, i.e., chronic lung diseases, rheumatic carditis, and hypertension (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957) . In 1957-1958, S. aureus was predominantly isolated from fatal pneumonia cases (Hers et al., 1957 (Hers et al., , 1958 Robertson et al., 1958; Martin et al., 1959) , whereas S. pneumoniae returned as predominant cause of severe pneumonia during the Hong Kong Flu (Sharrar, 1969; Bisno et al., 1971; Burk et al., 1971; Schwarzmann et al., 1971) . Forty years later in 2009, a novel H1N1 virus of swine origin emerged and caused again a pandemic (Dawood et al., 2009 (Dawood et al., , 2012 . In contrast to Asian and Hong Kong Flu, mortality rates were rather low, but most deaths occurred in healthy young individuals with no underlying conditions (Reichert et al., 2010; Monsalvo et al., 2011; Dawood et al., 2012) . About 25-50% of severe or fatal cases were linked to complications due to bacterial pneumonia (Dominguez-Cherit et al., 2009; Estenssoro et al., 2010; Mauad et al., 2010; Shieh et al., 2010 ). Although regional variations occurred, pneumococci and S. aureus were the most frequently isolated bacterial species (Mauad et al., 2010; Shieh et al., 2010; Rice et al., 2012) . Group A streptococcus was absent in many local pneumonia outbreaks associated with viruses, but was predominant in others (Brundage and Shanks, 2008; Ampofo et al., 2010) . When it does appear, it is typically third in incidence (Chaussee et al., 2011) . Overall, data on pandemic outbreaks suggest that disease severity and mortality can be linked to secondary bacterial pathogens with variations depending on regions and state of immunity of the population (Brundage and Shanks, 2008; Shanks et al., 2010 Shanks et al., , 2011 McCullers, 2013) .
There is increasing evidence that the nasopharyngeal microbiota plays an important role in the pathogenesis of acute viral respiratory infections (Teo et al., 2015; de Steenhuijsen Piters et al., 2016; Rosas-Salazar et al., 2016a,b) . Respiratory viruses, including IAV, have been shown to alter bacterial adherence and colonization leading to an increased risk of secondary bacterial infections (Tregoning and Schwarze, 2010) . Pneumococci, S. aureus, and GAS are important human Gram-positive pathogens. All of them are frequent colonizers of the human nasopharynx and they share many features including pathogenic mechanisms and clinical aspects (Figure 1) . However, they also have unique properties.
Staphylococcus aureus colonizes persistently about 30% of the human population and typical niches include nares, axillae, and skin (Peacock et al., 2001; von Eiff et al., 2001; van Belkum et al., 2009) . They cause a variety of clinical manifestations ranging from mild skin infections to fatal necrotizing pneumonia. In the last decades, the pathogen became resistant to an increasing number of antibiotics and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is now a major cause of hospital acquired infections (Hartman and Tomasz, 1984; Ubukata et al., 1989; Zetola et al., 2005) . Also the rise of community-acquired S. aureus strains is of special concern, because certain clones are associated with very severe infections (Rasigade et al., 2010) . Recent prospective studies demonstrated an increase in proportion of communityacquired methicillin-sensitive S. aureus in severe pneumonia cases (McCaskill et al., 2007; Sicot et al., 2013) .
The pneumococcus is a typical colonizer of the human nasopharynx. About 20-50% of healthy children and 8-30% of healthy adults are asymptomatically colonized (McCullers, 2006) . Pneumococci cause diseases ranging from mild, i.e., sinusitis, conjunctivitis, and otitis media, to more severe and potentially life-threatening infections, including communityacquired pneumonia, bacteraemia, and meningitis (Bogaert et al., 2004; Valles et al., 2016) . This bacterium is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates in risk groups such as immunocompromised individuals, children, and elderly (Black et al., 2010; Valles et al., 2016) .
Group A streptococci colonize the mouth and upper respiratory tract in about 2-5% of world's population (Okumura and Nizet, 2014) . The most common, non-invasive and mild infections caused by GAS are tonsillitis and pharyngitis with estimated 600 million cases per year (Carapetis et al., 2005) .
Listed as number nine in the list of global killers with around 500,000 deaths annually (Carapetis et al., 2005) , it is obvious that this pathogen can cause severe invasive infections, including pneumonia, sepsis, streptococcal toxic shock syndrome, and necrotizing skin infections (Cunningham, 2000; Carapetis et al., 2005) .
Although all three pathogens are able to cause highly lethal diseases, the most fatal remains the pneumococcus, estimated to cause ca. 10% of all deaths in children below 5 years of age (O'Brien et al., 2009) , in the elderly (Marrie et al., 2017) , and in immuno-compromised individuals (Baxter et al., 2016) .
Influenza A virus binds via HA to either α2,3or α2,6-linked sialic acid at the surface of epithelial cells of the upper and lower respiratory tract (Webster et al., 1992) . Seasonal strains show usually affinity to α2,6-linked sialic acids that are expressed in the human trachea, whereas avian-like viruses preferentially bind to α2,3-linked sialic acids of alveolar type II cells (Shinya et al., 2006; van Riel et al., 2007 van Riel et al., , 2010 . The release of viral genomic RNA into the cytosol activates different immune response pathways. Binding of viral RNA to retinoic acid inducible gene 1 induces the expression of type I and III interferons and activates transcription factor NF-κB, which in turn activates the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines (Durbin et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) . In addition, inflammasome activation leads to the release of IL-1β and IL-18 (Pothlichet et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) . All these responses are supposed to promote viral clearance. However, the presence of viral proteins during infection induces also direct activation of the intrinsic or indirectly the activation of the extrinsic apoptotic pathway via production of inflammatory cytokines, resulting in apoptosis or even necrosis of the epithelium (Korteweg and Gu, 2008) . Furthermore, aberrant coagulation induced by virus infection causes a hyper-inflammatory response (Yang and Tang, 2016) . All these events contribute to lung tissue injury (Imai et al., 2008; Davidson et al., 2014) . The epithelial damage due to viral replication provides a beneficial environment for initial bacterial attachment (Plotkowski et al., 1993) . On the other hand, already colonized bacteria might enhance influenza virus virulence either by directly secreting proteases that cleave and activate HA (Figure 2 ) (Bottcher-Friebertshauser et al., 2013) or, indirectly, by activating host proteases such as plasminogen, which increases replication rates and infectivity of the virus (Scheiblauer et al., 1992; Tse and Whittaker, 2015) .
Potentially pathogenic bacteria, including the three species mentioned above, express an arsenal of virulence factors responsible for attachment to human host structures. Microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules FIGURE 1 | Potential models to study bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract. S. pneumoniae, S. aureus, S. pyogenes, and S. suis are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract. Seasonal IAV infection can lead to an increased risk of secondary bacterial infections, i.e., pneumonia. Several experimental models can be used for studying these severe infections. Patient samples, including ex vivo lung tissue are materials of choice, but they are rare due to ethical considerations. Tissue engineering approaches closely resemble the 3D architecture, cellular composition, and matrix complexity of the respective organ and were proven as useful tool to study infectious diseases. In vivo bacterial and viral co-infections are mainly performed in mice, which does not necessarily resemble the human physiology and immune system. Thus, we suggest using the porcine model, which nearly resembles over 80% of the human immune system.
(MSCRAMMs), such as PspC, PspA, and PsaA in pneumococci (Hammerschmidt, 2006) , SPA, FnbA, ClfA, and ClfB in S. aureus (Bartlett and Hulten, 2010; Otto, 2010) , and M-protein, PrtF1, and PrtF2 in GAS (Cunningham, 2000) , respectively, and socalled moon-lightning proteins expressed by all three species, e.g., GAPDH, enolase or PGK (Fulde et al., 2013) , enable the bacteria to attach to damaged cells or molecules of the extracellular matrix, including fibronectin, fibrin, fibrinogen, and collagens, or fibrinolytic proteins like plasminogen (McCullers and Rehg, 2002; Bergmann and Hammerschmidt, 2007; Linke et al., 2012; Siemens et al., 2012; Voss et al., 2012) . Once the initial attachment occurs, bacterial cytotoxins including pneumolysin of pneumococci (Garcia-Suarez Mdel et al., 2007; Zahlten et al., 2015) , α-hemolysin and leukocidins of S. aureus (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) , and Streptolysins S and O and Streptococcal pyrogenic exotoxin B of S. pyogenes (Tsai et al., 1998; Gurel et al., 2013; Siemens et al., 2015 Siemens et al., , 2016 , can synergize with viral counterparts to further increase lung tissue pathology. Additional potential mechanisms by which the initial colonization of the lower respiratory tract and lung tissue damage might occur include potentiation of the development of pneumonia by IAV neuraminidase through enzymatic removal of sialic acid from the lung, thus exposing host receptors for pneumococcal adherence (McCullers and Bartmess, 2003) . The host inflammatory state in response to viral infection can alter presentation of receptors on the surface, thus allowing bacterial invasion (Cundell and Tuomanen, 1994) . As the patient begins to recover from viral infection, secondary bacterial infections might occur (Louria et al., 1959) due to the incomplete wound healing and exposure of host membrane components, including laminin, collagens type I and IV to classical bacterial MSCRAMMs (Louria et al., 1959; Puchelle et al., 2006) .
Epithelial cells are the first responders to infections in the lung, followed by the tissue resident alveolar macrophages. They promote viral clearance via phagocytosis, efferocytosis, and release of cytokines and chemokines to promote immune responses (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Kumagai et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2012; Hillaire et al., 2013) . Respiratory viruses like IAV are able to induce suppression and killing of the resident alveolar macrophages (Figure 2 ) (Ghoneim et al., 2013) . These cells are usually replaced by differentiation of recruited blood derived monocytes into macrophages of different polarization patterns. This in turn creates a delay in pathogen clearance and opens a window for host susceptibility to secondary bacterial infections, colloquially named superinfections (Ghoneim et al., 2013) . In addition, induction of interferons as a response to viral infection compromises the immune sensing of Gram-positive bacteria by neutrophils and macrophages, which would normally clear the bacteria from the lungs (Figure 2 ) (Sun and Metzger, 2008; Tian et al., 2012) . The exact mechanism underlying this phenomenon is still not understood. Several studies suggested that viral RNA activates Toll-like receptors (TLR) 2 and TLR4 and, consequently, the production of type I interferons to promote an antiviral state (Shahangian et al., 2009) . The subsequent infection with Gram-positive bacteria, e.g., pneumococci, enhances the type I interferon expression, which in turn suppresses production of the CCL2 chemokine and recruitment of macrophages (Nakamura Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org FIGURE 2 | The interplay between IAV, bacteria, and the human host. The epithelial damage due to viral replication provides a beneficial environment for bacterial (Bact.) attachment. IAV is able to induce suppression and killing of resident alveolar macrophages (AM), which in turn delays viral clearance. The release of viral RNA activates different immune response pathways resulting in cytokine storm. Type I and III interferons compromise the immune recognition of Gram-positive bacteria by neutrophils and macrophages. In addition, they might suppress natural killer cell function (NK), including release of TNF, which activates alveolar macrophages. After initial inflammation, the situation might worsen due to cellular infiltration of the lungs by neutrophils (PMN), leading to an increased degranulation and tissue damage by effector molecules, including heparin-binding protein (HBP). et al., 2011). Another study by Shahangian et al. (2009) revealed that the antiviral state leads to impaired production of neutrophil chemoattractants CXCL1 and CXCL2, which in turn promotes less effective immune responses due to attenuated neutrophil functions during the early phase of pneumococcal invasion. Other studies found that IAV exposed lungs had impaired natural killer (NK) cell responses in the airway to subsequent S. aureus infection (Small et al., 2010) . Reduced TNFα production by NK cells was identified as a crucial upstream mechanism of depressed antimicrobial activities by alveolar macrophages (Figure 2 ) (Small et al., 2010) . It seems likely that IAV NA is also able to activate host cell receptors in a TGF-β dependent manner, which in turn promotes GAS invasion and subsequent lung pathology (Li et al., 2015) . In vitro studies on the interplay between IAV-pneumococci and human dendritic cells revealed TLR3 as a crucial sensor of viral and bacterial RNA leading to enhanced IL-12p70 production, which in turn might promote an anti-viral state by upregulation of interferons (Yamamoto et al., 2004; Spelmink et al., 2016) . However, it should be noted that depending on the bacterial species the disease manifestation and underlying innate immune responses might vary (Sharma-Chawla et al., 2016) .
A lot of the experimental studies on disease mechanisms and immune responses are based on a subsequent bacterial infection within hours or a few days post IAV infection. However, bacterial infiltrations of the lungs might occur much later, i.e., during the onset of wound healing after partial clearance of IAV, which has been reported in most studies performed in recent years (Snelgrove et al., 2008; Hussell and Cavanagh, 2009 ). These processes are characterized by a general anti-inflammatory state and suppression of mechanisms involved in pathogen clearance due to increased interleukin-10 production (van der Sluijs et al., 2004; Metzger and Sun, 2013) . The anti-inflammatory state suppresses the expression of pattern recognition receptors (PRR) on professional phagocytes leading to impaired phagocytosis and killing of microbes. These events might allow bacterial overgrowth in the lungs and tissue pathology (Sun and Metzger, 2008; Goulding et al., 2011) .
Like other severe infectious diseases caused by single agents, pneumonia is characterized by hyper-inflammatory conditions of the lungs at the onset of infection followed by a hypoinflammatory state with immune paralysis (Morton et al., 2014) . In co-infections, after initial inflammation in response to viral infection the situation might worsen due to bacterial invasion and enhanced cellular infiltration of the lungs by neutrophils, leading to an increased tissue damage and cytokine storm (Figure 2 ) (Conenello et al., 2007; McAuley et al., 2007 McAuley et al., , 2010 Porto and Stein, 2016) . Furthermore, the coagulation system becomes activated and contributes to the pathophysiological response to infection (van der Poll and Herwald, 2014). Bacteria like pneumococci, S. aureus, and GAS can activate and modulate the coagulation system, leading to extensive expression of tissue factor and increasing the risk of severe coagulopathy Shannon et al., 2013; Walters et al., 2016) .
Bacterial pathogens also express a variety of cytolytic toxins that can contribute to inflammation and tissue pathology. Pneumolysin, a pneumococcal pore-forming toxin with low affinity to lung epithelial cells, can damage neutrophils by utilizing P2X7 receptor (Domon et al., 2016) . Staphylococcal cytotoxins (α-toxin and leukocidins, including Panton-Valentine leucocidin, PVL) are associated with severe tissue pathology, strong upregulation of chemokines, and increased neutrophil influx of the lungs (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . GAS toxins, including SLO and SpeB, are capable of directly causing tissue damage and promoting pro-inflammatory states through neutrophil lysis (Snall et al., 2016; Uhlmann et al., 2016) . The cytolytic effects caused by bacterial toxins might synergize with the outcome of IAV cytotoxic accessory protein, PB1-F2, mediated tissue pathology leading to enhanced cytokine production (Ramos and Fernandez-Sesma, 2012) . Taken together, most likely synergistic effects of the pathways that are involved in bacterial and viral inflammation lead to enhanced immune activation and higher morbidity and mortality (Joyce et al., 2009; Koppe et al., 2012; Ramos and Fernandez-Sesma, 2012; Bucasas et al., 2013; Kuri et al., 2013) . Figure 2 summarizes the interplay between virus, bacteria, and host.
Experimental animal models are a useful tool to study in vivo effects of different infectious agents and they represent approximately 3% of all pneumonia research published in peerreview journals (Hraiech et al., 2015) . However, the constant increase of animal studies in the last decades is in contrast to their reproducibility in humans (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Hackam and colleagues identified 2,000 articles published between 1980 and 2006 in seven leading scientific journals that regularly publish animal studies (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Seventy-six out of 2,000 were highly cited with a median citation count of 889. Out of these 76 studies 28 were replicated in human randomized trials, 14 were contradicted, and 34 remained untested (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Only 1.4% of the animal studies published in high-impact journals were translated in human randomized trials (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) , whereas about 44% replication rate was reported for highly cited human studies (Ioannidis, 2005) . In pneumonia models, mammalians are mostly used because of their anatomical and physiological proximity to humans (Hraiech et al., 2015) . To monitor extensive physiological studies, larger mammalian species, including ferrets, dogs, rabbits, pigs, and baboons are the models of choice (Mizgerd and Skerrett, 2008) . However, rodents and in particular mice are used more frequently as a pneumonia model organisms. Rapid reproductive rate, small size, less complicated handling, the ability to reproduce and compare results with already published bacterial and viral mono-infections, detailed knowledge of genetics and immune responses, and a plethora of available reagents to study infections in mice are reasons for the use of these animals. To avoid variations in responses due to genetic diversity inbred mice strains are useful tools for studies aiming to elucidate molecular mechanisms of diseases. In addition, genetic engineering allowed to generate a wide variety of mouse variants with gainof-function, loss-of-function or reporter genes (Mizgerd and Skerrett, 2008) .
As outlined above, many in vivo mice studies on bacterial and viral co-infections provided useful insights into severe pneumonia, including (i) the fact that viral infection primes the host for bacterial susceptibility leading to severe secondary infection (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Shahangian et al., 2009; Chaussee et al., 2011; Nakamura et al., 2011) , (ii) pathogen synergism (Tsai et al., 1998; McCullers and Rehg, 2002; Garcia-Suarez Mdel et al., 2007; Gurel et al., 2013; Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015; Zahlten et al., 2015) , (iii) enhanced inflammatory response at the onset of infection (Korteweg and Gu, 2008; Durbin et al., 2013; Pothlichet et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) leading to increased alveolar damage followed by immune paralysis with defective clearance of microorganisms (Shinya et al., 2006; van Riel et al., 2007 van Riel et al., , 2010 , and (iv) host receptor availability for sustained bacterial infection (Louria et al., 1959; Plotkowski et al., 1993; Cundell and Tuomanen, 1994; Puchelle et al., 2006; Korteweg and Gu, 2008) . However, mouse models for bacterial and/or viral infections have several limitations. Most of the bacterial and viral species under study are human pathogens. In recent years it was also shown that host genetic variations and sex differences have an impact on predisposition, severity, and outcome of infection (Chella Krishnan et al., 2015 While C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice are characterized by a higher resistance, DBA/2 strains are more susceptible and permissive to bacterial and viral strains (Alymova et al., 2011; Chella Krishnan et al., 2015 . In addition, transmission of IAV and bacteria is inefficient in adult mice, thus requiring alternative animal models, including neonatal mice or ferrets (Diavatopoulos et al., 2010; McCullers et al., 2010) . IAV was shown to be essential for pneumococcal transmission from colonized mice to their naive littermates and the transmission occurred only when all mice were infected with IAV (Diavatopoulos et al., 2010) . et al., 2010) . Ferrets are naturally susceptible to IAV isolated from different species, including humans, birds, and swine (Thangavel and Bouvier, 2014) . The infection of ferrets with human seasonal IAV isolates results in an upper respiratory tract infection similar to human influenza infection (Tripp and Tompkins, 2009) . In contrast to mice, non-adapted human IAV can be used for the infection. Unfortunately, there are only few reports on bacterial and IAV co-infections in this model organism. A report by Sanford and Ramsay showed enhanced staphylococcal colonization of the upper respiratory tract in IAV infected animals as compared to non-infected, while no difference between both groups was observed in group B streptococcal infection (Sanford and Ramsay, 1987) . In contrast, Smith and Mc Cullers reported lack of establishment of staphylococcal infection even when ferrets were pre-infected with IAV (Smith and McCullers, 2014) . The biggest advantages of using ferrets as a model include (i) their susceptibility to nonadapted human pathogens, (ii) efficiency in transmitting IAV and bacteria from one individual to another, and (iii) presentation of the clinical signs of disease manifestation akin to human influenza infection. Unfortunately, their limited availability, complex husbandry, and limited accessibility to ferret-specific reagents makes this research difficult to perform (Bouvier and Lowen, 2010) .
In recent years, the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) was also used in pneumonia research. The physiology and anatomy of the guinea pig lung resembles to a certain extent the human lung and this model organism is often used in non-infectious lung diseases, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Canning and Chou, 2008) . In addition, its commercial availability, ease of husbandry, the ability to work with nonadapted pathogens and the efficiency of transmission are reasons for using this in vivo model (Bouvier and Lowen, 2010) . Guinea pigs are susceptible to human, avian, and swine influenza viruses. Although viral replication can be readily detected upon intranasal inoculation in the upper respiratory tract and the lungs, guinea pigs exhibit only minor clinical symptoms (Lowen et al., 2006; Gabbard et al., 2014) . However, the lung pathology of human IAV infected guinea pigs correlates with the clinical severity of human infection (Gabbard et al., 2014) . Transmission of pneumococci in guinea pigs is promoted by co-infection with Sendai virus (Saito et al., 1988) . Guinea pigs infected with pneumococci alone and cage-mated with non-treated contact animals transmitted the bacteria only in 7% of cases, while Sendai-virus infected, co-housed guinea pigs acquired pneumococcal infection in 83% of contacts (Saito et al., 1988) . Another study evaluated antibiotic efficacy in invasive pulmonary infection caused by penicillin resistant pneumococcus (Ponte et al., 1996) . Intratracheal instillation of 3 × 10 9 CFU of S. pneumoniae induced a fatal pneumonia and bacteremia in 85% of untreated animals within 46 h (Ponte et al., 1996) . As with ferrets, there is a paucity of data describing immune responses to pulmonary infectious agents. This is in parts due to the lack of species specific reagents, which is a disadvantage in using this model organism.
Recently, the cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) was reported to be susceptible to IAV. Nasal and pulmonary infection in adult inbred cotton rats did not require viral adaptation (Ottolini et al., 2005) . The infection led to increased breathing rates accompanied by weight loss and decreased body temperature. Replication of IAV was more extensive in nasal tissues than the lung, and persisted for six consecutive days. Tissue pathology included damage of bronchiolar epithelium and the animals developed pneumonia which persisted for nearly 3 weeks (Ottolini et al., 2005) . In bacteriological studies rats are more frequently used. There are numerous rat models investigating the impact of diabetes (Oliveira et al., 2016) , metabolic syndromes (Feng et al., 2015) , cirrhosis , pharmaco-kinetics and dynamics (Antonopoulou et al., 2015; Hoover et al., 2015) , intoxication (Davis et al., 1991) , immunization (Iinuma and Okinaga, 1989) , and general bacterial virulence factors (Shanley et al., 1996) on development of pneumococcal, streptococcal, and staphylococcal pneumonia and lung pathology. Unfortunately, there are only few studies on bacterial and viral co-infections in rats. The first was performed by Harford et al., 1946 (Harford et al., 1946 . The authors concluded that the secondary bacterial pneumonia does not convert the sub-lethal viral infection to a lethal outcome (Harford et al., 1946) . Another study on human respiratory syncytial virus and S. pneumoniae revealed that rats were easily colonized with pneumococci, but viral replication after subsequent infection was strain dependent. In addition, neither pneumococci nor the virus spread from the upper to the lower respiratory tract, and neither pathogen was transmitted to naive cage mates . Although rats share a lot of immune features with humans, including nitric oxide production by macrophages (Carsillo et al., 2009) , the biggest disadvantages are low animal availability, aggressiveness of the species, and the lack of specific reagents.
Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) are well known for their use in studying cardiovascular diseases, antibody production, and eye research. Rabbits were also employed to study pneumonia, although only a few models are available. Typical read-out parameters include survival, leukocyte infiltration of the lungs, lung pathology, and assessment of drug concentration in serum. One of the first studies on pneumococcal pneumonia in rabbits was performed in Kline and Winternitz (1913) . This study revealed that rabbits possess an active immunity if they have recovered from one attack of experimental pneumonia and they may subsequently resist repeated intra-tracheal dosages of pneumococci (Kline and Winternitz, 1913) . In 1926 an infection by inhalation of Type I pneumococci was established in rabbits (Stillman and Branch, 1926) . The bacteria infiltrated easily the lower respiratory tract and pneumococci which reached the lungs usually disappeared within hours and fatal septicemia appeared in some of the animals (Stillman and Branch, 1926) . Most recent rabbit models of pneumococcal and staphylococcal pneumonia are based on intra-bronchial or intra-pulmonary infections which make them useful for pathogenesis (Diep et al., 2010 (Diep et al., , 2017 , as well as drug efficiency and efficacy studies (Cabellos et al., 1992; Croisier-Bertin et al., 2011) . However, this infection route requires surgery and species-specific reagents are scarce. In IAV research rabbits are frequently used for antibody production and for studies on antibody kinetics following single or multiple IAV administrations (Loza-Tulimowska et al., 1977) . Also, rabbits are used for safety investigations of vaccines (e.g., CoVaccine HT or Aflunov) (Heldens et al., 2010; Gasparini et al., 2012) . In recent years the shedding of avian IAV by cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.) was investigated revealing that nasally and orally inoculated cottontails shed relatively large quantities of viral RNA (Root et al., 2014) . Notably, low viral titers were found to be sufficient to initiate viral replication in cottontails (Root et al., 2017) . However, despite their susceptibility to IAV infection, rabbits are only rarely used as model for IAV pathogenesis since they offer no improvement over other established infection models.
Macaques represent the major non-human primate for studying infectious diseases. They are omnivorous and adaptable. The species most commonly used are rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) and cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fasciluraris).
Although it was shown early that macaques were susceptible to IAV (Saslaw et al., 1946) , the animal models of choice remained ferrets and mice. Recently, macaques have been used to compare the pathogenesis of highly virulent 1918 pandemic IAV and the pathogenic bird flu strain (H5N1) with a conventional H1N1 strain (Rimmelzwaan et al., 2001) . Cynomolgus macaques infected with highly pathogenic H5N1 developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, fever, and necrotizing pneumonia (Rimmelzwaan et al., 2001) . The 1918 IAV strain induced dysregulation of the antiviral response leading to insufficient protection of the host, which in turn resulted in acute respiratory distress and a fatal outcome (Kobasa et al., 2007) . The 2009 pandemic H1N1 US isolate caused severe pathological lesions in the lungs of the macaques (Itoh et al., 2009 ). The three studies mentioned above used combined intratracheal delivery of high doses of virus. A recent study by Marriott et al. analyzed the outcome of challenge routes, including inhaled aerosol and intra-nasal instillation with low to moderate doses of H1N1 in cynomolgus macaques (Marriott et al., 2016) . Virus replication was detected in all challenge groups, although the disease remained sub-clinical.
In bacteriological studies non-human primates are rarely used. For group A streptococcal infection longitudinal transcriptome analyses were performed in experimental pharyngitis (Virtaneva et al., 2005) and lower respiratory tract infection in cynomolgus macaques (Olsen et al., 2010a) . The lower respiratory tract disease observed in macaques after GAS infection mimicked the clinical and pathological features of severe bronchopneumonia in humans (Olsen et al., 2010a) . Another study by Olsen and colleagues analyzed the contribution of PVL of a highly virulent USA300 S. aureus strain in respiratory infection (Olsen et al., 2010b) . Although the lower respiratory tract disease observed in monkey mimicked the clinical and pathological features of early mild to moderate pneumonia in humans, no involvement of PVL in lung pathology or immune cell influx of the lungs could be detected (Olsen et al., 2010b) . The same research group has developed a non-lethal IAV (H3N2)-S. aureus co-infection model in cynomolgus macaques (Kobayashi et al., 2013) . Pneumonia progression was monitored by clinical parameters assessment, blood chemistry, nasal swabs, and pathology of the lungs. Seasonal IAV infection in healthy cynomolgus macaques caused mild pneumonia, but did not predispose the animals to subsequent severe infection with the USA300 clone (Kobayashi et al., 2013) .
Although macaques are frequently used for evaluation of pneumococcal vaccine efficacy, including testing the impact of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine on antigen-specific memory B cell repertoires (Jia et al., 2017) , only two studies on pneumococcal carriage and pneumonia were conducted in the last decade. In 2013, Philipp and colleagues analyzed the carriage rate of pneumococcus in 158 colony animals. None of the surveyed rhesus macaques carried S. pneumoniae in the nasopharynx (Philipp et al., 2012) . The authors concluded that rhesus macaque is probably not a natural host of pneumococci. But, when infants were colonized with 19F strain via nasopharyngeal instillation, the colonization was induced in eight of eight infants, lasted for 2 weeks in all animals and for 7 weeks in more than 60% (Philipp et al., 2012) . The same group tested detoxified pneumolysin (dPly) and pneumococcal histidine triad protein D (PhtD) as potential vaccine candidates to prevent pneumonia (Denoel et al., 2011) . After immunization the rhesus macaques were challenged with a 19F pneumococcal strain. AS02-adjuvanted PhtD-dPly vaccine protected the animals against S. pneumoniae-induced pneumonia, which was linked to the capacity (i) to greatly reduce bacterial load within the first week post-challenge and (ii) the levels of PhtD-and Ply-specific antibodies (Denoel et al., 2011) . Although only a few macaque studies on pneumonia exist, due to the close proximity to humans in terms of physiology and immunity, these animals can be a good model in the context of translational studies evaluating therapeutics and prophylaxis.
Despite the wide use of different animal models, the optimal in vivo model for human pneumonia remains to be identified. Small mammals including rodents are well known from a biological, genetic, and immunological point of view and are easy to maintain. The choice of these particular animals for infectious disease studies is often a result of a compromise between technical and financial options. However, they are also far from humans' anatomy, physiology, immunology, and susceptibility to exclusively human pathogens. The experimental animal model should be chosen based on responses comparable to humans. Primates are usually legally reserved to specific topics. In this case, pigs could be an appropriate model system for studying infectious diseases including pneumonia (Figure 1) . The composition and size of the porcine genome is comparable to that of humans (Hart et al., 2007) . In addition, human and porcine organs have many common features and functions (Swindle et al., 2012) . The upper respiratory tract of humans and pigs, including the lymphoid tissue in the nasopharynx, is anatomically similar. Furthermore, like humans, pigs possess tonsils, which are absent in mice (Horter et al., 2003) . A major advantage of studying infectious diseases by utilizing pigs as a host organism is that pigs have a full set of innate and adaptive immune effectors. According to whole genome sequencing results the porcine immune system resembles over 80% of the human immune system, whereas mice share less than 10% with humans (Dawson et al., 2016) . Most of the immune cell compartments identified in humans are also present in pigs (Piriou-Guzylack and Salmon, 2008; Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In contrast to mice and similar to humans, pigs have 50-70% of circulating polymorph nuclear cells (Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In addition, all functional cytokines or orthologs involved in Th1, Th2, Th17, and Treg paradigm and corresponding immune cells have been described in pigs (Murtaugh et al., 2009; Kaser et al., 2011; Kiros et al., 2011) . Especially the very prominent human pro-inflammatory chemo-attractant, CXCL8, is present as an ortholog in pigs, whereas there is no homologue in mice (Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In contrast to human monocytes, which can be divided in three subclasses (classical CD14 + CD16 − , nonclassical CD14 + CD16 + , and intermediate CD14 ++ CD16 + ), porcine monocytes consist of four subclasses (Chamorro et al., 2005; Fairbairn et al., 2013) . Like human monocytes they express adhesion molecules, such as VLA-4 and LFA-1 and costimulatory molecules, including CD80 and CD86 (Chamorro et al., 2005) .
The pig has previously been used to mimic a number of human infectious diseases. Examples for S. aureus infections with this model organism are wound infections Svedman et al., 1989) , osteomyelitis (Jensen et al., 2010) , and sepsis (Nielsen et al., 2009) . Intravenous inoculation of piglets with pneumococci led to bacteremia during a 5 days period and was associated with fever and septic arthritis. Intranasal inoculation of piglets led to colonization for at least six consecutive days without causing clinical signs (De Greeff et al., 2016) . In addition, research on respiratory infections of pigs by human pathogens including S. aureus (Luna et al., 2009) , Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Gil et al., 2010) , Bordetella pertussis (Elahi et al., 2007) , Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Luna et al., 2009) , and IAV (Khatri et al., 2010) , was performed in recent years. The fact that pigs and humans are infected with identical subtypes of IAV (H1N1, H3N2), and show similar clinical presentation and pathogenesis, makes pigs an ideal model organism for studies on respiratory co-infections (Van Reeth et al., 1998) . Especially IAV infections are already well established in swine (Van Reeth et al., 1998 , 2002a Jung et al., 2007; Khatri et al., 2010; Barbe et al., 2011) .
In addition to the limited number of publications on pigs and human pathogens, a lot can be translated and learned from studies on the porcine zoonotic pathogen Streptococcus suis. S. suis usually inhabits mucosal surfaces of tonsils, nares, genital and alimentary tract of piglets. Once the microbial balance is disturbed, the bacteria can cause meningitis, septicemia, arthritis, and pneumonia in pigs (Staats et al., 1997) . Some S. suis strains are considered to be hyper-virulent and others hypo-or avirulent. In general, serotype 2 is most frequently isolated from diseased pigs (Staats et al., 1997) . S. suis can also cause severe diseases in humans including septicemia, meningitis, arthritis, and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (Tang et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2006; Gottschalk et al., 2007) . Although many in vivo studies on S. suis have been performed by utilizing mice as a model organism (Seitz et al., 2012; Auger et al., 2016) , several other studies have shown the advantage of using swine as a natural host for S. suis (Bi et al., 2014; Ferrando et al., 2015) . A recent publication by Lin and colleagues on H1N1 and S. suis co-infected piglets demonstrated the synergistic effects of both pathogens (Lin et al., 2015) . Co-infected piglets had more severe clinical presentation and pathological changes in the lung, as compared to animals infected with single pathogens (Lin et al., 2015) . In addition, genes associated with immune responses, inflammatory cytokine production, and apoptotic pathways were highly overexpressed in the coinfected group (Lin et al., 2015) . Although the porcine model seems to be ideal to mimic human infectious diseases, there are also disadvantages, including, e.g., requirement for specialized experimental animal facilities, time consuming management, high maintenance costs, and limited availability of transgenic animals.
Although the use of animals contributes greatly to our understanding of infectious diseases, human 3D-organotypic tissue models and ex vivo organ tissues should be considered, as they are most valuable tools to study host-pathogen interactions in a more complex setting (Figure 1) . Tissue engineering approaches were originally focused on regenerative medicine (Langer and Vacanti, 1993) . In contrast to standard monolayer cell cultures, tissue models much more closely resemble the 3D architecture, cellular composition, and matrix complexity of the respective organ. In recent years tissue engineering was also successfully employed in a number of studies in infectious diseases, including Zika virus infections of cerebral organoids (Lancaster et al., 2013; Dang et al., 2016) , Helicobacter pylori infections of gastric epithelial organoids (McCracken et al., 2014; Schlaermann et al., 2016) , Escherichia coli and Rotavirus infections of gastrointestinal and small intestinal enteroids (Saxena et al., 2015; VanDussen et al., 2015) , Entamoeba histolytica or Hepatitis B virus infections of hepatic sinusoid tissue (Petropolis et al., 2014 (Petropolis et al., , 2016 , group A and G streptococcal or staphylococcal infections of skin tissue models Mairpady Shambat et al., 2016) , and staphylococcal and Andes hantavirus infections of human lung tissue (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015; Sundstrom et al., 2016) . The adaptability of these tissue-engineered models to multiple pathogens suggests a great potential for studies of infectious diseases. For instance, the lung tissue model relevant for pneumonia consists of lung fibroblasts embedded in a collagen matrix with a stratified epithelial layer on top (Nguyen Hoang et al., 2012) . The engineered tissue is suitable for implanting and studying immune cells, including dendritic cells, monocytes, macrophages, and even peripheral blood mononuclear cells (Nguyen Hoang et al., 2012; Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . A recent publication demonstrated a two-hit-event of lung pathology in staphylococcal necrotizing pneumonia (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . While the α-toxin had direct damaging effect on the lung epithelium, PVL induced lung pathology indirectly through the lysis of neutrophils (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . All the studies mentioned above highlight a significant progress in the field of infectious diseases not only from a scientific point of view but also by contributing to the three R principle of animal experimentation (Russell, 1995) .
On these terms, the use of cultured ex vivo human organ biopsies, which are rare due to ethical considerations, is an additional option to study host-pathogen interactions. This ex vivo system may overcome even the limitations of the engineered tissue. In recent years human ex vivo lung tissue infections with various microorganisms, including pneumococci (Szymanski et al., 2012; Fatykhova et al., 2015) , Bacillus anthracis (Chakrabarty et al., 2007) , Haemophilus influenzae (Zhang et al., 2016) , and IAV (Nicholls et al., 2007; Chan et al., 2009) , were performed. In the human setting, most of the work focused on tropism, severity of infections, release of inflammatory mediators, and replication rates of the microorganisms. In addition, recently also experiments on swine influenza virus (SIV) and S. suis co-infections of the porcine ex vivo lung slices were reported. Meng and colleagues showed that SIV promotes subsequent bacterial infections in a two-step process of which the first initial step was dependent on capsule expression, whereas the second step of bacterial invasion into deeper layers was capsuleindependent and required virus-mediated damage (Meng et al., 2015) . However, this is just a beginning and more investigations are needed to unravel the complexity underlying these highly invasive infections.
In summary, bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract are highly lethal and present a dramatic burden for the global health system. The synergy between bacterial and viral infectious agents is related to a variety of factors, including epithelial barrier damage, exaggerated innate immune response, and cytokine storm. Despite many advances in recent years, more knowledge on mechanisms and immunology of disease progression is needed. The synergistic mechanisms between viruses and bacteria leading to enhanced morbidity and mortality are poorly understood. In vivo characterizations of these severe infections are mainly performed in mice which poorly resemble the human physiology and immune system. Several efforts have been made to establish other models, including ferrets, guinea pigs, rabbits, rats, and non-human primates. However, all have limitations. Here, we suggest using the porcine model, which provides obvious advantages in studies of human infectious diseases and should be considered much more frequent for future studies on severe infectious diseases, including pneumonia. | What is Pneumolysin? | 5,180 | a pneumococcal pore-forming toxin | 24,175 |
1,664 | Port d’Entrée for Respiratory Infections – Does the Influenza A Virus Pave the Way for Bacteria?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5742597/
SHA: ee0050c6fb81a4067d134010d0c80d21edb5df0b
Authors: Siemens, Nikolai; Oehmcke-Hecht, Sonja; Mettenleiter, Thomas C.; Kreikemeyer, Bernd; Valentin-Weigand, Peter; Hammerschmidt, Sven
Date: 2017-12-21
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02602
License: cc-by
Abstract: Bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract are life-threatening and present a global burden to the global community. Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus pyogenes are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract. Imbalances through acquisition of seasonal viruses, e.g., Influenza A virus, can lead to bacterial dissemination to the lower respiratory tract, which in turn can result in severe pneumonia. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract and focus on potential experimental models suitable for mimicking this disease. Transmission of IAV and pneumonia is mainly modeled by mouse infection. Few studies utilizing ferrets, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and non-human primates are also available. The knowledge gained from these studies led to important discoveries and advances in understanding these infectious diseases. Nevertheless, mouse and other infection models have limitations, especially in translation of the discoveries to humans. Here, we suggest the use of human engineered lung tissue, human ex vivo lung tissue, and porcine models to study respiratory co-infections, which might contribute to a greater translation of the results to humans and improve both, animal and human health.
Text: In recent years the human microbiota is more and more recognized to play a crucial role in pathogenesis of many diseases (Weinstock, 2012) . The upper respiratory tract is a natural niche for potentially pathogenic bacteria embedded in commensal communities forming the nasopharyngeal microbiome. In particular, the microbial communities of the nasopharynx (Hilty et al., 2012) are associated with respiratory diseases, i.e., severe pneumonia, which are responsible for substantial mortality and morbidity in humans worldwide (Prina et al., 2016) . The composition of the nasopharyngeal microbiome is highly dynamic (Biesbroek et al., 2014a,b,c) and many factors, including environmental and host factors, can affect microbial colonization (Koppen et al., 2015) . Recent studies on neonates have shown that the respiratory microbiota develops from initially maternally transmitted mixed flora with predominance of Streptococcus viridans species to niche-specific bacterial profiles containing mostly Staphylococcus aureus at around 1 week of age (Bosch et al., 2016a) . Between 2 weeks and 6 months after birth, the staphylococcal predominance declines and colonization with Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococci) as a predominant pathobiont emerges (Miller et al., 2011; Bosch et al., 2016a,b) . The dynamic microbiome composition is guaranteed through the interplay between bacterial species, other microbes, and changing environmental conditions, as well as host-bacteria interactions (Blaser and Falkow, 2009 ). Most of the time, the microbiome and its interplay with the human host are believed to be beneficial for both (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Murphy et al., 2009 ). However, imbalances in microbial composition can lead to acquisition of new viral or bacterial species and invasion of potential pathogens, which in turn can become detrimental, especially in elderly people and children with an exhausted or immature immune system (Pettigrew et al., 2008; Blaser and Falkow, 2009; Murphy et al., 2009) .
One particular example showing imbalances introduced by single dosage of antibiotics was demonstrated by Ichinohe and colleagues (Ichinohe et al., 2011) . While commensal respiratory microbiota facilitated immune-support against Influenza A virus infection (IAV), oral treatment with antibiotics resulted not only in a shift of bacterial composition, but also in impaired CD4 T-, CD8 T-, and B-cell immunity following infection with IAV in mice (Ichinohe et al., 2011) . Analyses of human oropharyngeal microbiomes during the 2009 H1N1 IAV pandemic revealed that at the phylum level, the abundance of Fermicutes and Proteobacteria was augmented in pneumonia patients as compared to healthy controls (Leung et al., 2013) . However, another study published in the same year contradicted these results (Chaban et al., 2013) . Chaban and colleagues analyzed microbiomes of 65 patients from H1N1 IAV outbreak in 2009. Although the phylogenetic composition of pneumonia patients was dominated by Fermicutes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria, no significant differences between the patients and healthy controls or any other variables tested, including age and gender, were observed (Chaban et al., 2013) .
In this review we discuss secondary bacterial infections of the respiratory tract after primary infection by IAV with a focus on mechanisms by which these interactions are potentially mediated, and we will provide insight into the host contribution and immunological consequences. We further focus on potential animal models suitable for mimicking asymptomatic bacterial colonization and disease progression and thus, enabling to study adaptation strategies, viral-bacterial interactions, and immune responses in these highly lethal co-infections.
Influenza A viruses belong to the family of Orthomyxoviridae and based on the antigenicity of their haemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) they are classified into 16 classical HA and 9 classical NA subtypes (Neumann et al., 2009) . The 8-segmented genomes of influenza A viruses are characterized by a significant plasticity. Due to point mutations and re-assortment events new variants or strains with epidemic or pandemic potential emerge (Neumann et al., 2009 ). In addition, influenza can be transmitted between animals, including swine, birds, horses, and humans, making it a zoonotic disease (van der Meer et al., 2010) . Seasonal influenza usually resolves without consequences in healthy individuals. However, it is estimated that seasonal influenza effects 5-10% of the world's population resulting in about 250,000 to 500,000 deaths annually (Tjon-Kon-Fat et al., 2016) . At greater risk to develop secondary bacterial pneumonia are individuals with comorbidities, elderly people (age > 65), pregnant women, and children under the age of one (Rothberg et al., 2008) .
For a long time it was considered that the H1N1 strain, an avian-like H1N1 virus, directly caused most of the fatalities during the 1918-1919 pandemic (Spanish Flu), often from a hemorrhagic pneumonitis rapidly progressing to acute respiratory distress syndrome and death (Osterholm, 2005; Gerberding, 2006; Oxford et al., 2006) . The pandemic killed around 50 million people worldwide and remains unique in its severity compared to other big outbreaks. However, many of the findings have been reinterpreted in recent years (Brundage and Shanks, 2007; Chien et al., 2009) . It is estimated that around 95% of all severe cases and deaths were attributed to secondary infections with bacterial pathogens, most predominantly by Streptococcus pneumoniae (Morens et al., 2008) . Individual studies limited to certain regions identified also other pathogens commonly colonizing the respiratory tract, including Staphylococcus aureus, group A streptococcus (GAS) and Haemophilus influenzae (Brundage and Shanks, 2008) . During the next two pandemics (H2N2 Asian Flu 1957 and H3N2 Hong Kong Flu 1968 −1969 bacterial co-infections were less likely the cause of death compared to the Spanish Flu (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957; Trotter et al., 1959) . Still, pneumonia accounted for about 44% of deaths during the Asian Flu (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957) . Most fatalities resulting from pneumonia occurred in individuals with chronic conditions, i.e., chronic lung diseases, rheumatic carditis, and hypertension (Giles and Shuttleworth, 1957) . In 1957-1958, S. aureus was predominantly isolated from fatal pneumonia cases (Hers et al., 1957 (Hers et al., , 1958 Robertson et al., 1958; Martin et al., 1959) , whereas S. pneumoniae returned as predominant cause of severe pneumonia during the Hong Kong Flu (Sharrar, 1969; Bisno et al., 1971; Burk et al., 1971; Schwarzmann et al., 1971) . Forty years later in 2009, a novel H1N1 virus of swine origin emerged and caused again a pandemic (Dawood et al., 2009 (Dawood et al., , 2012 . In contrast to Asian and Hong Kong Flu, mortality rates were rather low, but most deaths occurred in healthy young individuals with no underlying conditions (Reichert et al., 2010; Monsalvo et al., 2011; Dawood et al., 2012) . About 25-50% of severe or fatal cases were linked to complications due to bacterial pneumonia (Dominguez-Cherit et al., 2009; Estenssoro et al., 2010; Mauad et al., 2010; Shieh et al., 2010 ). Although regional variations occurred, pneumococci and S. aureus were the most frequently isolated bacterial species (Mauad et al., 2010; Shieh et al., 2010; Rice et al., 2012) . Group A streptococcus was absent in many local pneumonia outbreaks associated with viruses, but was predominant in others (Brundage and Shanks, 2008; Ampofo et al., 2010) . When it does appear, it is typically third in incidence (Chaussee et al., 2011) . Overall, data on pandemic outbreaks suggest that disease severity and mortality can be linked to secondary bacterial pathogens with variations depending on regions and state of immunity of the population (Brundage and Shanks, 2008; Shanks et al., 2010 Shanks et al., , 2011 McCullers, 2013) .
There is increasing evidence that the nasopharyngeal microbiota plays an important role in the pathogenesis of acute viral respiratory infections (Teo et al., 2015; de Steenhuijsen Piters et al., 2016; Rosas-Salazar et al., 2016a,b) . Respiratory viruses, including IAV, have been shown to alter bacterial adherence and colonization leading to an increased risk of secondary bacterial infections (Tregoning and Schwarze, 2010) . Pneumococci, S. aureus, and GAS are important human Gram-positive pathogens. All of them are frequent colonizers of the human nasopharynx and they share many features including pathogenic mechanisms and clinical aspects (Figure 1) . However, they also have unique properties.
Staphylococcus aureus colonizes persistently about 30% of the human population and typical niches include nares, axillae, and skin (Peacock et al., 2001; von Eiff et al., 2001; van Belkum et al., 2009) . They cause a variety of clinical manifestations ranging from mild skin infections to fatal necrotizing pneumonia. In the last decades, the pathogen became resistant to an increasing number of antibiotics and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is now a major cause of hospital acquired infections (Hartman and Tomasz, 1984; Ubukata et al., 1989; Zetola et al., 2005) . Also the rise of community-acquired S. aureus strains is of special concern, because certain clones are associated with very severe infections (Rasigade et al., 2010) . Recent prospective studies demonstrated an increase in proportion of communityacquired methicillin-sensitive S. aureus in severe pneumonia cases (McCaskill et al., 2007; Sicot et al., 2013) .
The pneumococcus is a typical colonizer of the human nasopharynx. About 20-50% of healthy children and 8-30% of healthy adults are asymptomatically colonized (McCullers, 2006) . Pneumococci cause diseases ranging from mild, i.e., sinusitis, conjunctivitis, and otitis media, to more severe and potentially life-threatening infections, including communityacquired pneumonia, bacteraemia, and meningitis (Bogaert et al., 2004; Valles et al., 2016) . This bacterium is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates in risk groups such as immunocompromised individuals, children, and elderly (Black et al., 2010; Valles et al., 2016) .
Group A streptococci colonize the mouth and upper respiratory tract in about 2-5% of world's population (Okumura and Nizet, 2014) . The most common, non-invasive and mild infections caused by GAS are tonsillitis and pharyngitis with estimated 600 million cases per year (Carapetis et al., 2005) .
Listed as number nine in the list of global killers with around 500,000 deaths annually (Carapetis et al., 2005) , it is obvious that this pathogen can cause severe invasive infections, including pneumonia, sepsis, streptococcal toxic shock syndrome, and necrotizing skin infections (Cunningham, 2000; Carapetis et al., 2005) .
Although all three pathogens are able to cause highly lethal diseases, the most fatal remains the pneumococcus, estimated to cause ca. 10% of all deaths in children below 5 years of age (O'Brien et al., 2009) , in the elderly (Marrie et al., 2017) , and in immuno-compromised individuals (Baxter et al., 2016) .
Influenza A virus binds via HA to either α2,3or α2,6-linked sialic acid at the surface of epithelial cells of the upper and lower respiratory tract (Webster et al., 1992) . Seasonal strains show usually affinity to α2,6-linked sialic acids that are expressed in the human trachea, whereas avian-like viruses preferentially bind to α2,3-linked sialic acids of alveolar type II cells (Shinya et al., 2006; van Riel et al., 2007 van Riel et al., , 2010 . The release of viral genomic RNA into the cytosol activates different immune response pathways. Binding of viral RNA to retinoic acid inducible gene 1 induces the expression of type I and III interferons and activates transcription factor NF-κB, which in turn activates the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines (Durbin et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) . In addition, inflammasome activation leads to the release of IL-1β and IL-18 (Pothlichet et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) . All these responses are supposed to promote viral clearance. However, the presence of viral proteins during infection induces also direct activation of the intrinsic or indirectly the activation of the extrinsic apoptotic pathway via production of inflammatory cytokines, resulting in apoptosis or even necrosis of the epithelium (Korteweg and Gu, 2008) . Furthermore, aberrant coagulation induced by virus infection causes a hyper-inflammatory response (Yang and Tang, 2016) . All these events contribute to lung tissue injury (Imai et al., 2008; Davidson et al., 2014) . The epithelial damage due to viral replication provides a beneficial environment for initial bacterial attachment (Plotkowski et al., 1993) . On the other hand, already colonized bacteria might enhance influenza virus virulence either by directly secreting proteases that cleave and activate HA (Figure 2 ) (Bottcher-Friebertshauser et al., 2013) or, indirectly, by activating host proteases such as plasminogen, which increases replication rates and infectivity of the virus (Scheiblauer et al., 1992; Tse and Whittaker, 2015) .
Potentially pathogenic bacteria, including the three species mentioned above, express an arsenal of virulence factors responsible for attachment to human host structures. Microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules FIGURE 1 | Potential models to study bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract. S. pneumoniae, S. aureus, S. pyogenes, and S. suis are frequent colonizers of the upper respiratory tract. Seasonal IAV infection can lead to an increased risk of secondary bacterial infections, i.e., pneumonia. Several experimental models can be used for studying these severe infections. Patient samples, including ex vivo lung tissue are materials of choice, but they are rare due to ethical considerations. Tissue engineering approaches closely resemble the 3D architecture, cellular composition, and matrix complexity of the respective organ and were proven as useful tool to study infectious diseases. In vivo bacterial and viral co-infections are mainly performed in mice, which does not necessarily resemble the human physiology and immune system. Thus, we suggest using the porcine model, which nearly resembles over 80% of the human immune system.
(MSCRAMMs), such as PspC, PspA, and PsaA in pneumococci (Hammerschmidt, 2006) , SPA, FnbA, ClfA, and ClfB in S. aureus (Bartlett and Hulten, 2010; Otto, 2010) , and M-protein, PrtF1, and PrtF2 in GAS (Cunningham, 2000) , respectively, and socalled moon-lightning proteins expressed by all three species, e.g., GAPDH, enolase or PGK (Fulde et al., 2013) , enable the bacteria to attach to damaged cells or molecules of the extracellular matrix, including fibronectin, fibrin, fibrinogen, and collagens, or fibrinolytic proteins like plasminogen (McCullers and Rehg, 2002; Bergmann and Hammerschmidt, 2007; Linke et al., 2012; Siemens et al., 2012; Voss et al., 2012) . Once the initial attachment occurs, bacterial cytotoxins including pneumolysin of pneumococci (Garcia-Suarez Mdel et al., 2007; Zahlten et al., 2015) , α-hemolysin and leukocidins of S. aureus (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) , and Streptolysins S and O and Streptococcal pyrogenic exotoxin B of S. pyogenes (Tsai et al., 1998; Gurel et al., 2013; Siemens et al., 2015 Siemens et al., , 2016 , can synergize with viral counterparts to further increase lung tissue pathology. Additional potential mechanisms by which the initial colonization of the lower respiratory tract and lung tissue damage might occur include potentiation of the development of pneumonia by IAV neuraminidase through enzymatic removal of sialic acid from the lung, thus exposing host receptors for pneumococcal adherence (McCullers and Bartmess, 2003) . The host inflammatory state in response to viral infection can alter presentation of receptors on the surface, thus allowing bacterial invasion (Cundell and Tuomanen, 1994) . As the patient begins to recover from viral infection, secondary bacterial infections might occur (Louria et al., 1959) due to the incomplete wound healing and exposure of host membrane components, including laminin, collagens type I and IV to classical bacterial MSCRAMMs (Louria et al., 1959; Puchelle et al., 2006) .
Epithelial cells are the first responders to infections in the lung, followed by the tissue resident alveolar macrophages. They promote viral clearance via phagocytosis, efferocytosis, and release of cytokines and chemokines to promote immune responses (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Kumagai et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2012; Hillaire et al., 2013) . Respiratory viruses like IAV are able to induce suppression and killing of the resident alveolar macrophages (Figure 2 ) (Ghoneim et al., 2013) . These cells are usually replaced by differentiation of recruited blood derived monocytes into macrophages of different polarization patterns. This in turn creates a delay in pathogen clearance and opens a window for host susceptibility to secondary bacterial infections, colloquially named superinfections (Ghoneim et al., 2013) . In addition, induction of interferons as a response to viral infection compromises the immune sensing of Gram-positive bacteria by neutrophils and macrophages, which would normally clear the bacteria from the lungs (Figure 2 ) (Sun and Metzger, 2008; Tian et al., 2012) . The exact mechanism underlying this phenomenon is still not understood. Several studies suggested that viral RNA activates Toll-like receptors (TLR) 2 and TLR4 and, consequently, the production of type I interferons to promote an antiviral state (Shahangian et al., 2009) . The subsequent infection with Gram-positive bacteria, e.g., pneumococci, enhances the type I interferon expression, which in turn suppresses production of the CCL2 chemokine and recruitment of macrophages (Nakamura Frontiers in Microbiology | www.frontiersin.org FIGURE 2 | The interplay between IAV, bacteria, and the human host. The epithelial damage due to viral replication provides a beneficial environment for bacterial (Bact.) attachment. IAV is able to induce suppression and killing of resident alveolar macrophages (AM), which in turn delays viral clearance. The release of viral RNA activates different immune response pathways resulting in cytokine storm. Type I and III interferons compromise the immune recognition of Gram-positive bacteria by neutrophils and macrophages. In addition, they might suppress natural killer cell function (NK), including release of TNF, which activates alveolar macrophages. After initial inflammation, the situation might worsen due to cellular infiltration of the lungs by neutrophils (PMN), leading to an increased degranulation and tissue damage by effector molecules, including heparin-binding protein (HBP). et al., 2011). Another study by Shahangian et al. (2009) revealed that the antiviral state leads to impaired production of neutrophil chemoattractants CXCL1 and CXCL2, which in turn promotes less effective immune responses due to attenuated neutrophil functions during the early phase of pneumococcal invasion. Other studies found that IAV exposed lungs had impaired natural killer (NK) cell responses in the airway to subsequent S. aureus infection (Small et al., 2010) . Reduced TNFα production by NK cells was identified as a crucial upstream mechanism of depressed antimicrobial activities by alveolar macrophages (Figure 2 ) (Small et al., 2010) . It seems likely that IAV NA is also able to activate host cell receptors in a TGF-β dependent manner, which in turn promotes GAS invasion and subsequent lung pathology (Li et al., 2015) . In vitro studies on the interplay between IAV-pneumococci and human dendritic cells revealed TLR3 as a crucial sensor of viral and bacterial RNA leading to enhanced IL-12p70 production, which in turn might promote an anti-viral state by upregulation of interferons (Yamamoto et al., 2004; Spelmink et al., 2016) . However, it should be noted that depending on the bacterial species the disease manifestation and underlying innate immune responses might vary (Sharma-Chawla et al., 2016) .
A lot of the experimental studies on disease mechanisms and immune responses are based on a subsequent bacterial infection within hours or a few days post IAV infection. However, bacterial infiltrations of the lungs might occur much later, i.e., during the onset of wound healing after partial clearance of IAV, which has been reported in most studies performed in recent years (Snelgrove et al., 2008; Hussell and Cavanagh, 2009 ). These processes are characterized by a general anti-inflammatory state and suppression of mechanisms involved in pathogen clearance due to increased interleukin-10 production (van der Sluijs et al., 2004; Metzger and Sun, 2013) . The anti-inflammatory state suppresses the expression of pattern recognition receptors (PRR) on professional phagocytes leading to impaired phagocytosis and killing of microbes. These events might allow bacterial overgrowth in the lungs and tissue pathology (Sun and Metzger, 2008; Goulding et al., 2011) .
Like other severe infectious diseases caused by single agents, pneumonia is characterized by hyper-inflammatory conditions of the lungs at the onset of infection followed by a hypoinflammatory state with immune paralysis (Morton et al., 2014) . In co-infections, after initial inflammation in response to viral infection the situation might worsen due to bacterial invasion and enhanced cellular infiltration of the lungs by neutrophils, leading to an increased tissue damage and cytokine storm (Figure 2 ) (Conenello et al., 2007; McAuley et al., 2007 McAuley et al., , 2010 Porto and Stein, 2016) . Furthermore, the coagulation system becomes activated and contributes to the pathophysiological response to infection (van der Poll and Herwald, 2014). Bacteria like pneumococci, S. aureus, and GAS can activate and modulate the coagulation system, leading to extensive expression of tissue factor and increasing the risk of severe coagulopathy Shannon et al., 2013; Walters et al., 2016) .
Bacterial pathogens also express a variety of cytolytic toxins that can contribute to inflammation and tissue pathology. Pneumolysin, a pneumococcal pore-forming toxin with low affinity to lung epithelial cells, can damage neutrophils by utilizing P2X7 receptor (Domon et al., 2016) . Staphylococcal cytotoxins (α-toxin and leukocidins, including Panton-Valentine leucocidin, PVL) are associated with severe tissue pathology, strong upregulation of chemokines, and increased neutrophil influx of the lungs (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . GAS toxins, including SLO and SpeB, are capable of directly causing tissue damage and promoting pro-inflammatory states through neutrophil lysis (Snall et al., 2016; Uhlmann et al., 2016) . The cytolytic effects caused by bacterial toxins might synergize with the outcome of IAV cytotoxic accessory protein, PB1-F2, mediated tissue pathology leading to enhanced cytokine production (Ramos and Fernandez-Sesma, 2012) . Taken together, most likely synergistic effects of the pathways that are involved in bacterial and viral inflammation lead to enhanced immune activation and higher morbidity and mortality (Joyce et al., 2009; Koppe et al., 2012; Ramos and Fernandez-Sesma, 2012; Bucasas et al., 2013; Kuri et al., 2013) . Figure 2 summarizes the interplay between virus, bacteria, and host.
Experimental animal models are a useful tool to study in vivo effects of different infectious agents and they represent approximately 3% of all pneumonia research published in peerreview journals (Hraiech et al., 2015) . However, the constant increase of animal studies in the last decades is in contrast to their reproducibility in humans (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Hackam and colleagues identified 2,000 articles published between 1980 and 2006 in seven leading scientific journals that regularly publish animal studies (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Seventy-six out of 2,000 were highly cited with a median citation count of 889. Out of these 76 studies 28 were replicated in human randomized trials, 14 were contradicted, and 34 remained untested (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) . Only 1.4% of the animal studies published in high-impact journals were translated in human randomized trials (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006) , whereas about 44% replication rate was reported for highly cited human studies (Ioannidis, 2005) . In pneumonia models, mammalians are mostly used because of their anatomical and physiological proximity to humans (Hraiech et al., 2015) . To monitor extensive physiological studies, larger mammalian species, including ferrets, dogs, rabbits, pigs, and baboons are the models of choice (Mizgerd and Skerrett, 2008) . However, rodents and in particular mice are used more frequently as a pneumonia model organisms. Rapid reproductive rate, small size, less complicated handling, the ability to reproduce and compare results with already published bacterial and viral mono-infections, detailed knowledge of genetics and immune responses, and a plethora of available reagents to study infections in mice are reasons for the use of these animals. To avoid variations in responses due to genetic diversity inbred mice strains are useful tools for studies aiming to elucidate molecular mechanisms of diseases. In addition, genetic engineering allowed to generate a wide variety of mouse variants with gainof-function, loss-of-function or reporter genes (Mizgerd and Skerrett, 2008) .
As outlined above, many in vivo mice studies on bacterial and viral co-infections provided useful insights into severe pneumonia, including (i) the fact that viral infection primes the host for bacterial susceptibility leading to severe secondary infection (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Shahangian et al., 2009; Chaussee et al., 2011; Nakamura et al., 2011) , (ii) pathogen synergism (Tsai et al., 1998; McCullers and Rehg, 2002; Garcia-Suarez Mdel et al., 2007; Gurel et al., 2013; Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015; Zahlten et al., 2015) , (iii) enhanced inflammatory response at the onset of infection (Korteweg and Gu, 2008; Durbin et al., 2013; Pothlichet et al., 2013; Iwasaki and Pillai, 2014) leading to increased alveolar damage followed by immune paralysis with defective clearance of microorganisms (Shinya et al., 2006; van Riel et al., 2007 van Riel et al., , 2010 , and (iv) host receptor availability for sustained bacterial infection (Louria et al., 1959; Plotkowski et al., 1993; Cundell and Tuomanen, 1994; Puchelle et al., 2006; Korteweg and Gu, 2008) . However, mouse models for bacterial and/or viral infections have several limitations. Most of the bacterial and viral species under study are human pathogens. In recent years it was also shown that host genetic variations and sex differences have an impact on predisposition, severity, and outcome of infection (Chella Krishnan et al., 2015 While C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice are characterized by a higher resistance, DBA/2 strains are more susceptible and permissive to bacterial and viral strains (Alymova et al., 2011; Chella Krishnan et al., 2015 . In addition, transmission of IAV and bacteria is inefficient in adult mice, thus requiring alternative animal models, including neonatal mice or ferrets (Diavatopoulos et al., 2010; McCullers et al., 2010) . IAV was shown to be essential for pneumococcal transmission from colonized mice to their naive littermates and the transmission occurred only when all mice were infected with IAV (Diavatopoulos et al., 2010) . et al., 2010) . Ferrets are naturally susceptible to IAV isolated from different species, including humans, birds, and swine (Thangavel and Bouvier, 2014) . The infection of ferrets with human seasonal IAV isolates results in an upper respiratory tract infection similar to human influenza infection (Tripp and Tompkins, 2009) . In contrast to mice, non-adapted human IAV can be used for the infection. Unfortunately, there are only few reports on bacterial and IAV co-infections in this model organism. A report by Sanford and Ramsay showed enhanced staphylococcal colonization of the upper respiratory tract in IAV infected animals as compared to non-infected, while no difference between both groups was observed in group B streptococcal infection (Sanford and Ramsay, 1987) . In contrast, Smith and Mc Cullers reported lack of establishment of staphylococcal infection even when ferrets were pre-infected with IAV (Smith and McCullers, 2014) . The biggest advantages of using ferrets as a model include (i) their susceptibility to nonadapted human pathogens, (ii) efficiency in transmitting IAV and bacteria from one individual to another, and (iii) presentation of the clinical signs of disease manifestation akin to human influenza infection. Unfortunately, their limited availability, complex husbandry, and limited accessibility to ferret-specific reagents makes this research difficult to perform (Bouvier and Lowen, 2010) .
In recent years, the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) was also used in pneumonia research. The physiology and anatomy of the guinea pig lung resembles to a certain extent the human lung and this model organism is often used in non-infectious lung diseases, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Canning and Chou, 2008) . In addition, its commercial availability, ease of husbandry, the ability to work with nonadapted pathogens and the efficiency of transmission are reasons for using this in vivo model (Bouvier and Lowen, 2010) . Guinea pigs are susceptible to human, avian, and swine influenza viruses. Although viral replication can be readily detected upon intranasal inoculation in the upper respiratory tract and the lungs, guinea pigs exhibit only minor clinical symptoms (Lowen et al., 2006; Gabbard et al., 2014) . However, the lung pathology of human IAV infected guinea pigs correlates with the clinical severity of human infection (Gabbard et al., 2014) . Transmission of pneumococci in guinea pigs is promoted by co-infection with Sendai virus (Saito et al., 1988) . Guinea pigs infected with pneumococci alone and cage-mated with non-treated contact animals transmitted the bacteria only in 7% of cases, while Sendai-virus infected, co-housed guinea pigs acquired pneumococcal infection in 83% of contacts (Saito et al., 1988) . Another study evaluated antibiotic efficacy in invasive pulmonary infection caused by penicillin resistant pneumococcus (Ponte et al., 1996) . Intratracheal instillation of 3 × 10 9 CFU of S. pneumoniae induced a fatal pneumonia and bacteremia in 85% of untreated animals within 46 h (Ponte et al., 1996) . As with ferrets, there is a paucity of data describing immune responses to pulmonary infectious agents. This is in parts due to the lack of species specific reagents, which is a disadvantage in using this model organism.
Recently, the cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) was reported to be susceptible to IAV. Nasal and pulmonary infection in adult inbred cotton rats did not require viral adaptation (Ottolini et al., 2005) . The infection led to increased breathing rates accompanied by weight loss and decreased body temperature. Replication of IAV was more extensive in nasal tissues than the lung, and persisted for six consecutive days. Tissue pathology included damage of bronchiolar epithelium and the animals developed pneumonia which persisted for nearly 3 weeks (Ottolini et al., 2005) . In bacteriological studies rats are more frequently used. There are numerous rat models investigating the impact of diabetes (Oliveira et al., 2016) , metabolic syndromes (Feng et al., 2015) , cirrhosis , pharmaco-kinetics and dynamics (Antonopoulou et al., 2015; Hoover et al., 2015) , intoxication (Davis et al., 1991) , immunization (Iinuma and Okinaga, 1989) , and general bacterial virulence factors (Shanley et al., 1996) on development of pneumococcal, streptococcal, and staphylococcal pneumonia and lung pathology. Unfortunately, there are only few studies on bacterial and viral co-infections in rats. The first was performed by Harford et al., 1946 (Harford et al., 1946 . The authors concluded that the secondary bacterial pneumonia does not convert the sub-lethal viral infection to a lethal outcome (Harford et al., 1946) . Another study on human respiratory syncytial virus and S. pneumoniae revealed that rats were easily colonized with pneumococci, but viral replication after subsequent infection was strain dependent. In addition, neither pneumococci nor the virus spread from the upper to the lower respiratory tract, and neither pathogen was transmitted to naive cage mates . Although rats share a lot of immune features with humans, including nitric oxide production by macrophages (Carsillo et al., 2009) , the biggest disadvantages are low animal availability, aggressiveness of the species, and the lack of specific reagents.
Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) are well known for their use in studying cardiovascular diseases, antibody production, and eye research. Rabbits were also employed to study pneumonia, although only a few models are available. Typical read-out parameters include survival, leukocyte infiltration of the lungs, lung pathology, and assessment of drug concentration in serum. One of the first studies on pneumococcal pneumonia in rabbits was performed in Kline and Winternitz (1913) . This study revealed that rabbits possess an active immunity if they have recovered from one attack of experimental pneumonia and they may subsequently resist repeated intra-tracheal dosages of pneumococci (Kline and Winternitz, 1913) . In 1926 an infection by inhalation of Type I pneumococci was established in rabbits (Stillman and Branch, 1926) . The bacteria infiltrated easily the lower respiratory tract and pneumococci which reached the lungs usually disappeared within hours and fatal septicemia appeared in some of the animals (Stillman and Branch, 1926) . Most recent rabbit models of pneumococcal and staphylococcal pneumonia are based on intra-bronchial or intra-pulmonary infections which make them useful for pathogenesis (Diep et al., 2010 (Diep et al., , 2017 , as well as drug efficiency and efficacy studies (Cabellos et al., 1992; Croisier-Bertin et al., 2011) . However, this infection route requires surgery and species-specific reagents are scarce. In IAV research rabbits are frequently used for antibody production and for studies on antibody kinetics following single or multiple IAV administrations (Loza-Tulimowska et al., 1977) . Also, rabbits are used for safety investigations of vaccines (e.g., CoVaccine HT or Aflunov) (Heldens et al., 2010; Gasparini et al., 2012) . In recent years the shedding of avian IAV by cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.) was investigated revealing that nasally and orally inoculated cottontails shed relatively large quantities of viral RNA (Root et al., 2014) . Notably, low viral titers were found to be sufficient to initiate viral replication in cottontails (Root et al., 2017) . However, despite their susceptibility to IAV infection, rabbits are only rarely used as model for IAV pathogenesis since they offer no improvement over other established infection models.
Macaques represent the major non-human primate for studying infectious diseases. They are omnivorous and adaptable. The species most commonly used are rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) and cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fasciluraris).
Although it was shown early that macaques were susceptible to IAV (Saslaw et al., 1946) , the animal models of choice remained ferrets and mice. Recently, macaques have been used to compare the pathogenesis of highly virulent 1918 pandemic IAV and the pathogenic bird flu strain (H5N1) with a conventional H1N1 strain (Rimmelzwaan et al., 2001) . Cynomolgus macaques infected with highly pathogenic H5N1 developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, fever, and necrotizing pneumonia (Rimmelzwaan et al., 2001) . The 1918 IAV strain induced dysregulation of the antiviral response leading to insufficient protection of the host, which in turn resulted in acute respiratory distress and a fatal outcome (Kobasa et al., 2007) . The 2009 pandemic H1N1 US isolate caused severe pathological lesions in the lungs of the macaques (Itoh et al., 2009 ). The three studies mentioned above used combined intratracheal delivery of high doses of virus. A recent study by Marriott et al. analyzed the outcome of challenge routes, including inhaled aerosol and intra-nasal instillation with low to moderate doses of H1N1 in cynomolgus macaques (Marriott et al., 2016) . Virus replication was detected in all challenge groups, although the disease remained sub-clinical.
In bacteriological studies non-human primates are rarely used. For group A streptococcal infection longitudinal transcriptome analyses were performed in experimental pharyngitis (Virtaneva et al., 2005) and lower respiratory tract infection in cynomolgus macaques (Olsen et al., 2010a) . The lower respiratory tract disease observed in macaques after GAS infection mimicked the clinical and pathological features of severe bronchopneumonia in humans (Olsen et al., 2010a) . Another study by Olsen and colleagues analyzed the contribution of PVL of a highly virulent USA300 S. aureus strain in respiratory infection (Olsen et al., 2010b) . Although the lower respiratory tract disease observed in monkey mimicked the clinical and pathological features of early mild to moderate pneumonia in humans, no involvement of PVL in lung pathology or immune cell influx of the lungs could be detected (Olsen et al., 2010b) . The same research group has developed a non-lethal IAV (H3N2)-S. aureus co-infection model in cynomolgus macaques (Kobayashi et al., 2013) . Pneumonia progression was monitored by clinical parameters assessment, blood chemistry, nasal swabs, and pathology of the lungs. Seasonal IAV infection in healthy cynomolgus macaques caused mild pneumonia, but did not predispose the animals to subsequent severe infection with the USA300 clone (Kobayashi et al., 2013) .
Although macaques are frequently used for evaluation of pneumococcal vaccine efficacy, including testing the impact of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine on antigen-specific memory B cell repertoires (Jia et al., 2017) , only two studies on pneumococcal carriage and pneumonia were conducted in the last decade. In 2013, Philipp and colleagues analyzed the carriage rate of pneumococcus in 158 colony animals. None of the surveyed rhesus macaques carried S. pneumoniae in the nasopharynx (Philipp et al., 2012) . The authors concluded that rhesus macaque is probably not a natural host of pneumococci. But, when infants were colonized with 19F strain via nasopharyngeal instillation, the colonization was induced in eight of eight infants, lasted for 2 weeks in all animals and for 7 weeks in more than 60% (Philipp et al., 2012) . The same group tested detoxified pneumolysin (dPly) and pneumococcal histidine triad protein D (PhtD) as potential vaccine candidates to prevent pneumonia (Denoel et al., 2011) . After immunization the rhesus macaques were challenged with a 19F pneumococcal strain. AS02-adjuvanted PhtD-dPly vaccine protected the animals against S. pneumoniae-induced pneumonia, which was linked to the capacity (i) to greatly reduce bacterial load within the first week post-challenge and (ii) the levels of PhtD-and Ply-specific antibodies (Denoel et al., 2011) . Although only a few macaque studies on pneumonia exist, due to the close proximity to humans in terms of physiology and immunity, these animals can be a good model in the context of translational studies evaluating therapeutics and prophylaxis.
Despite the wide use of different animal models, the optimal in vivo model for human pneumonia remains to be identified. Small mammals including rodents are well known from a biological, genetic, and immunological point of view and are easy to maintain. The choice of these particular animals for infectious disease studies is often a result of a compromise between technical and financial options. However, they are also far from humans' anatomy, physiology, immunology, and susceptibility to exclusively human pathogens. The experimental animal model should be chosen based on responses comparable to humans. Primates are usually legally reserved to specific topics. In this case, pigs could be an appropriate model system for studying infectious diseases including pneumonia (Figure 1) . The composition and size of the porcine genome is comparable to that of humans (Hart et al., 2007) . In addition, human and porcine organs have many common features and functions (Swindle et al., 2012) . The upper respiratory tract of humans and pigs, including the lymphoid tissue in the nasopharynx, is anatomically similar. Furthermore, like humans, pigs possess tonsils, which are absent in mice (Horter et al., 2003) . A major advantage of studying infectious diseases by utilizing pigs as a host organism is that pigs have a full set of innate and adaptive immune effectors. According to whole genome sequencing results the porcine immune system resembles over 80% of the human immune system, whereas mice share less than 10% with humans (Dawson et al., 2016) . Most of the immune cell compartments identified in humans are also present in pigs (Piriou-Guzylack and Salmon, 2008; Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In contrast to mice and similar to humans, pigs have 50-70% of circulating polymorph nuclear cells (Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In addition, all functional cytokines or orthologs involved in Th1, Th2, Th17, and Treg paradigm and corresponding immune cells have been described in pigs (Murtaugh et al., 2009; Kaser et al., 2011; Kiros et al., 2011) . Especially the very prominent human pro-inflammatory chemo-attractant, CXCL8, is present as an ortholog in pigs, whereas there is no homologue in mice (Fairbairn et al., 2011) . In contrast to human monocytes, which can be divided in three subclasses (classical CD14 + CD16 − , nonclassical CD14 + CD16 + , and intermediate CD14 ++ CD16 + ), porcine monocytes consist of four subclasses (Chamorro et al., 2005; Fairbairn et al., 2013) . Like human monocytes they express adhesion molecules, such as VLA-4 and LFA-1 and costimulatory molecules, including CD80 and CD86 (Chamorro et al., 2005) .
The pig has previously been used to mimic a number of human infectious diseases. Examples for S. aureus infections with this model organism are wound infections Svedman et al., 1989) , osteomyelitis (Jensen et al., 2010) , and sepsis (Nielsen et al., 2009) . Intravenous inoculation of piglets with pneumococci led to bacteremia during a 5 days period and was associated with fever and septic arthritis. Intranasal inoculation of piglets led to colonization for at least six consecutive days without causing clinical signs (De Greeff et al., 2016) . In addition, research on respiratory infections of pigs by human pathogens including S. aureus (Luna et al., 2009) , Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Gil et al., 2010) , Bordetella pertussis (Elahi et al., 2007) , Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Luna et al., 2009) , and IAV (Khatri et al., 2010) , was performed in recent years. The fact that pigs and humans are infected with identical subtypes of IAV (H1N1, H3N2), and show similar clinical presentation and pathogenesis, makes pigs an ideal model organism for studies on respiratory co-infections (Van Reeth et al., 1998) . Especially IAV infections are already well established in swine (Van Reeth et al., 1998 , 2002a Jung et al., 2007; Khatri et al., 2010; Barbe et al., 2011) .
In addition to the limited number of publications on pigs and human pathogens, a lot can be translated and learned from studies on the porcine zoonotic pathogen Streptococcus suis. S. suis usually inhabits mucosal surfaces of tonsils, nares, genital and alimentary tract of piglets. Once the microbial balance is disturbed, the bacteria can cause meningitis, septicemia, arthritis, and pneumonia in pigs (Staats et al., 1997) . Some S. suis strains are considered to be hyper-virulent and others hypo-or avirulent. In general, serotype 2 is most frequently isolated from diseased pigs (Staats et al., 1997) . S. suis can also cause severe diseases in humans including septicemia, meningitis, arthritis, and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (Tang et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2006; Gottschalk et al., 2007) . Although many in vivo studies on S. suis have been performed by utilizing mice as a model organism (Seitz et al., 2012; Auger et al., 2016) , several other studies have shown the advantage of using swine as a natural host for S. suis (Bi et al., 2014; Ferrando et al., 2015) . A recent publication by Lin and colleagues on H1N1 and S. suis co-infected piglets demonstrated the synergistic effects of both pathogens (Lin et al., 2015) . Co-infected piglets had more severe clinical presentation and pathological changes in the lung, as compared to animals infected with single pathogens (Lin et al., 2015) . In addition, genes associated with immune responses, inflammatory cytokine production, and apoptotic pathways were highly overexpressed in the coinfected group (Lin et al., 2015) . Although the porcine model seems to be ideal to mimic human infectious diseases, there are also disadvantages, including, e.g., requirement for specialized experimental animal facilities, time consuming management, high maintenance costs, and limited availability of transgenic animals.
Although the use of animals contributes greatly to our understanding of infectious diseases, human 3D-organotypic tissue models and ex vivo organ tissues should be considered, as they are most valuable tools to study host-pathogen interactions in a more complex setting (Figure 1) . Tissue engineering approaches were originally focused on regenerative medicine (Langer and Vacanti, 1993) . In contrast to standard monolayer cell cultures, tissue models much more closely resemble the 3D architecture, cellular composition, and matrix complexity of the respective organ. In recent years tissue engineering was also successfully employed in a number of studies in infectious diseases, including Zika virus infections of cerebral organoids (Lancaster et al., 2013; Dang et al., 2016) , Helicobacter pylori infections of gastric epithelial organoids (McCracken et al., 2014; Schlaermann et al., 2016) , Escherichia coli and Rotavirus infections of gastrointestinal and small intestinal enteroids (Saxena et al., 2015; VanDussen et al., 2015) , Entamoeba histolytica or Hepatitis B virus infections of hepatic sinusoid tissue (Petropolis et al., 2014 (Petropolis et al., , 2016 , group A and G streptococcal or staphylococcal infections of skin tissue models Mairpady Shambat et al., 2016) , and staphylococcal and Andes hantavirus infections of human lung tissue (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015; Sundstrom et al., 2016) . The adaptability of these tissue-engineered models to multiple pathogens suggests a great potential for studies of infectious diseases. For instance, the lung tissue model relevant for pneumonia consists of lung fibroblasts embedded in a collagen matrix with a stratified epithelial layer on top (Nguyen Hoang et al., 2012) . The engineered tissue is suitable for implanting and studying immune cells, including dendritic cells, monocytes, macrophages, and even peripheral blood mononuclear cells (Nguyen Hoang et al., 2012; Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . A recent publication demonstrated a two-hit-event of lung pathology in staphylococcal necrotizing pneumonia (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . While the α-toxin had direct damaging effect on the lung epithelium, PVL induced lung pathology indirectly through the lysis of neutrophils (Mairpady Shambat et al., 2015) . All the studies mentioned above highlight a significant progress in the field of infectious diseases not only from a scientific point of view but also by contributing to the three R principle of animal experimentation (Russell, 1995) .
On these terms, the use of cultured ex vivo human organ biopsies, which are rare due to ethical considerations, is an additional option to study host-pathogen interactions. This ex vivo system may overcome even the limitations of the engineered tissue. In recent years human ex vivo lung tissue infections with various microorganisms, including pneumococci (Szymanski et al., 2012; Fatykhova et al., 2015) , Bacillus anthracis (Chakrabarty et al., 2007) , Haemophilus influenzae (Zhang et al., 2016) , and IAV (Nicholls et al., 2007; Chan et al., 2009) , were performed. In the human setting, most of the work focused on tropism, severity of infections, release of inflammatory mediators, and replication rates of the microorganisms. In addition, recently also experiments on swine influenza virus (SIV) and S. suis co-infections of the porcine ex vivo lung slices were reported. Meng and colleagues showed that SIV promotes subsequent bacterial infections in a two-step process of which the first initial step was dependent on capsule expression, whereas the second step of bacterial invasion into deeper layers was capsuleindependent and required virus-mediated damage (Meng et al., 2015) . However, this is just a beginning and more investigations are needed to unravel the complexity underlying these highly invasive infections.
In summary, bacterial and viral co-infections of the respiratory tract are highly lethal and present a dramatic burden for the global health system. The synergy between bacterial and viral infectious agents is related to a variety of factors, including epithelial barrier damage, exaggerated innate immune response, and cytokine storm. Despite many advances in recent years, more knowledge on mechanisms and immunology of disease progression is needed. The synergistic mechanisms between viruses and bacteria leading to enhanced morbidity and mortality are poorly understood. In vivo characterizations of these severe infections are mainly performed in mice which poorly resemble the human physiology and immune system. Several efforts have been made to establish other models, including ferrets, guinea pigs, rabbits, rats, and non-human primates. However, all have limitations. Here, we suggest using the porcine model, which provides obvious advantages in studies of human infectious diseases and should be considered much more frequent for future studies on severe infectious diseases, including pneumonia. | What factors make bacterial and viral co-infections so lethal? | 5,181 | epithelial barrier damage, exaggerated innate immune response, and cytokine storm | 51,640 |
1,730 | Architectural Insight into Inovirus-Associated Vectors (IAVs) and Development of IAV-Based Vaccines Inducing Humoral and Cellular Responses: Implications in HIV-1 Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4276942/
SHA: f6e6534cb423c1823ad38d7d5c0a98c303f2efdb
Authors: Hassapis, Kyriakos A.; Stylianou, Dora C.; Kostrikis, Leondios G.
Date: 2014-12-17
DOI: 10.3390/v6125047
License: cc-by
Abstract: Inovirus-associated vectors (IAVs) are engineered, non-lytic, filamentous bacteriophages that are assembled primarily from thousands of copies of the major coat protein gp8 and just five copies of each of the four minor coat proteins gp3, gp6, gp7 and gp9. Inovirus display studies have shown that the architecture of inoviruses makes all coat proteins of the inoviral particle accessible to the outside. This particular feature of IAVs allows foreign antigenic peptides to be displayed on the outer surface of the virion fused to its coat proteins and for more than two decades has been exploited in many applications including antibody or peptide display libraries, drug design, and vaccine development against infectious and non-infectious diseases. As vaccine carriers, IAVs have been shown to elicit both a cellular and humoral response against various pathogens through the display of antibody epitopes on their coat proteins. Despite their high immunogenicity, the goal of developing an effective vaccine against HIV-1 has not yet materialized. One possible limitation of previous efforts was the use of broadly neutralizing antibodies, which exhibited autoreactivity properties. In the past five years, however, new, more potent broadly neutralizing antibodies that do not exhibit autoreactivity properties have been isolated from HIV-1 infected individuals, suggesting that vaccination strategies aimed at producing such broadly neutralizing antibodies may confer protection against infection. The utilization of these new, broadly neutralizing antibodies in combination with the architectural traits of IAVs have driven the current developments in the design of an inovirus-based vaccine against HIV-1. This article reviews the applications of IAVs in vaccine development, with particular emphasis on the design of inoviral-based vaccines against HIV-1.
Text: Filamentous bacterial viruses are a group of thread-like viruses containing single-stranded DNA genomes. Collectively, they constitute the genus Inovirus in the family Inoviridae, the terms deriving from the Greek word Ίνα for filament [1] [2] [3] , and they are commonly called filamentous bacteriophages. There are over 50 different known individual species of filamentous viruses; the majority of them capable of infecting Gram-negative bacteria. The complex interaction between filamentous phages and their bacterial hosts is specified by receptor organelles that are usually encoded by transmissible plasmids [1, 4] . One of the most intriguing features of inoviruses is that they are assembled at the host membrane, where the major capsid protein subunits replace the single-stranded DNA binding protein, and progeny virions are continuously extruded into the medium without killing the infected cell, giving rise to titers of up to 10 13 virions per milliliter of liquid culture [5, 6] . The high virus production is associated only with a mild retardation of the host's growth, which gives rise to the formation of opaque plaques on bacterial lawns. In this sense, filamentous viruses bear a resemblance to symbiotic non-pathogenic animal viruses rather than phages, the term coming from the Greek word φάγος for destroyer. Inovirus virions are flexible and slender cylindrical filaments [2, 3] less than 10 nm in diameter and in the order of 1000 nm in length (see details in Figure 1 ). Each virion has several thousand identical major capsid or coat protein subunits packaging a circular single-stranded DNA molecule. Each virion also has a few specific minor proteins at each end, those at one end (proximal end) for attachment during infection, and those at the other end (distal end) for nucleation and initiation of the assembly process at the host's membrane.
The number of species of inovirus isolated and characterized in different parts of the world is rather large [1] . Among E. coli inoviruses, the best-studied and most-exploited is Ff, a group of closely related viruses (fd, f1 and M13) (for review see [4, 6] ) that infect male (F + ) strains of E. coli. All Ff have almost identical DNA and protein sequences, gene organization, and most other structural parameters [7] [8] [9] . Fd, M13 and f1 differ in their genomes at only about 100 positions out of 6408 nucleotides for f1 and fd or 6407 nucleotides for M13. The genetics and life cycle of three viruses f1, fd and M13 have been studied extensively and we know a great deal about them. The Ff genome contains ten tightly arranged genes and a non-coding intergenic region, which contains the packaging signal [10] [11] [12] , the (+) and (−) origins of DNA replication, and the major rho-dependent transcriptional terminator (for recent review see [4] ). Five of the ten viral genes encode proteins found in the virion (g3, g6, g8, g7 and g9). Genes 3 and 6 are found on the proximal end of the virion and are essential for infectivity and stabilization, whereas, gene 7 and gene 9 proteins, gp7 and gp9, respectively, are located at the distal end of the virion and are responsible for the initiation assembly [13] [14] [15] . In the end-to-end model illustrated in Figure 1 , both the proximal (gp7 and gp9) and distal (gp3 and gp6) minor coat protein subunits maintain the fivefold axial symmetry of the major coat protein gp8 subunits along the virion.
The life cycle of Ff filamentous viruses starts with the adsorption of the virus to the tip of the F + specific pilus of E. coli. Attachment takes place by means of an adsorption structure composed of five copies of gp3, located at the proximal end of the virion (see Figure 1 ), mainly through sequential binding of the gp3 N2 domain with the tip of the F pilus and the N1 domain with the periplasmic domain III of TolA (for recent review see reference 4). After adsorption, the virus is drawn to the surface of the cell where the major coat protein gp8 subunits become associated with the inner membrane of the cell [16] [17] [18] and the circular single-stranded DNA (cssDNA) is released into the cytoplasm. Inside the cytoplasm, the cssDNA is converted into a parental double-stranded replicative form (RF). Ff inoviruses replicate their genome by a rolling-circle mechanism. Consecutive transcription from the RF DNA, and translation as well an asymmetric single strand DNA synthesis lead to an intracellular pool of viral precursor complexes, which contain viral single-stranded DNA molecules bound with gp5 protein subunits, except a small hairpin loop that serves as the packaging signal for virion assembly [10] [11] [12] . The major coat protein gp8 subunits are synthesized with a signal peptide sequence that facilitates their transport to and insertion into the bacterial membrane, where they are cleaved by signal peptidase. After cleavage, the mature coat protein is left spanning the membrane with its C terminus in the cytoplasm and the N terminus outside the cytoplasm in the periplasm [19] [20] [21] . The assembly of filamentous viruses takes place at the membrane where the gp5 subunits are replaced by gp8 subunits. The first step of the assembly sequence is the binding of the packaging signal, a site of about 30 nucleotides that forms a hairpin loop, with presumably five subunits of each of the minor coat proteins gp7 and gp9 [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] . Virus assembly proceeds as single-stranded DNA passes through the membrane and more mature coat protein gp8 subunits are added until the entire DNA molecule is packaged. At the distal end of the virion, five copies of each of gp6 and gp3 are added and the complete virion is released into the medium [23, 27] . The assembly of inoviruses on the bacterial inner membrane is a harmonized sequential process that involves a variety of interactions between viral-encoded proteins (gp1, gp4 and gp11) and host-encoded proteins, without killing the host bacterium (reviewed by [4] ).
The structure of the Ff virus has been extensively studied by a number of laboratories in the last five decades. However, despite all of the efforts, the structure has not been completely determined and some critical questions remain unanswered. The major difficulty is that these viruses cannot be crystallized. They can be oriented in fibers suitable for X-ray fiber diffraction studies, but these are not crystals. Interpretations of the fiber diffraction patterns together with a number of physicochemical measurements, have shown that the major coat protein gp8 subunits have a five-start helical symmetry (5-fold rotation axis) and are referred to as Class I [28] [29] [30] strictly based on the fundamental symmetry of the protein subunits helices as determined by fiber diffraction (reviewed by [2] ). On the other hand, the structure of the packaged ssDNA molecule in the virion, including its helical symmetry and the interactions with the protein sheath, is one of the least understood aspects. The structure of the DNA inside these viruses cannot be determined by conventional X-ray fiber diffraction techniques, partly because of the low DNA content in the virions. Theoretical studies have demonstrated that the single-stranded DNA molecule is uniquely packaged inside the Ff virion by predominant electrostatic interactions [3, 31] .
A 3D scale schematic model of an end-to-end Ff (fd) inoviral virion. The model is based on published physical data including the determined helical parameters of the major coat protein gp8 and the X-ray structure of the N1-N2 domains of the minor coat protein gp3. The model shows the relative location of the circular single-stranded DNA (cssDNA) genome (6408 nucleotides long, illustrated as blue ribbons), some structural details of the outer virion capsid (major coat protein pg8) and the four minor coat proteins (gp6, gp3, gp7 and gp9) present at the ends of the virion. On top, a digital scanning transmission electron micrograph (STEM) of unstained fd virus, prepared by the wet-film technique according to previously established procedures of the Brookhaven STEM facility [32] [33] [34] . The ends of one complete virion are designated by arrows. The data were collected in collaboration with L.A. Day and J. S. Wall at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton New York. Under these STEM conditions fd virions are about 8800 Å long and about 65 Å in diameter [3] . In the middle, a proposed end-to-end scale 3D diagram of fd virion is presented. The entire fd virion is composed of about 2700 subunits of gp8 with the exception of its two ends. Architectural details of an axial slab 176 Å long (about 1/50 of the virion length) consisting entirely of subunits of major coat protein gp8. The structure of the 50-amino-acid-long and extended α-helical gp8, shown below in both surface and ribbon images, is presented in the virion model as a cylindrical stack of 25 gray disks about 70 Å long and 10 Å in diameter. The images of gp8 were derived from coordinates of RCSB PDB database accession number 2cOW [35] using PyMOL [36] . The gp8 subunits are arranged with a helical symmetry that includes a two-fold screw axis and a five-fold rotation axis, consisting of two pentamers of pg8 [28] [29] [30] 35] . The two pentamers are architecturally related to each other by a translation of about 16 Å along the virion axis and a rotation of 36° about the axis [28] . The proximal end of the virion, shown on the left, is composed of five copies of each of the minor coat proteins gp6 and gp3 (for a recent review see [4] ). The proximal end is modeled based on partial information known about the structures of gp6 and gp3. Specifically, the N-terminal portion of gp6 was modeled following the helical parameters of gp8, based on protein sequence homology between the two [23] [24] [25] . Five copies of gp3 subunits were modeled based on structural information of the N1-N2 domains. The images of the N1-N2 domains of gp3 are shown below and were derived from coordinates of RCSB PDB database accession number 1g3p [36] using PyMOL. The domain organization of gp3 is also shown. The distal end of the virion (right) consists of five copies of each minor coat proteins gp7 and gp9, modeled following the helical parameters of gp8 according to a previously published model [25] .
The easy genetic manipulation of inoviruses and the possibility of inserting random oligonucleotides into their genome set the foundation for inovirus display (phage display) technology [37, 38] . Expression of these genetically modified inoviruses results in the presentation of oligopeptides as fusion proteins on the surface of the virion and are herein termed IAVs for inovirus-associated vectors. IAVs can be modified to express an oligopeptide on either all or on some copies of a particular capsid protein. One possibility is to insert an oligonucleotide sequence of interest in the viral genome to create a fusion with capsid protein gp3, gp7, gp8 or gp9, so that the oligopeptide is displayed on every copy of the capsid protein. Alternatively, a phagemid vector can be used, which carries an extra copy of a capsid protein to which the oligonucleotide is fused. Coinfection of bacterial hosts with the phagemid vector and a replication deficient helper phage, that carries the wild type capsid protein, would result in mosaic inovirus particles. That is, they will contain copies of both the wild type coat protein and the recombinant protein that contains the oligopeptide of interest [39] . Non-mosaic and mosaic IAVs that display a peptide on gp3 or gp8 have been recently reviewed [4] while IAVs that display a peptide on gp7 or gp9 have been reviewed elsewhere [40] [41] [42] . In contrast to the other four-capsid proteins, gp6 capsid protein has only been utilized for the production of mosaic virions [43] [44] [45] . Figure 2 illustrates the display of an antigen on each of the five capsid proteins of an IAV as indicated in published literature. It also introduces a new terminology to denote the gene to which the oligopeptides are fused to and whether the virion is a mosaic. To display many copies of an oligopeptide on an IAV, the ideal capsid protein to utilize is gp8. The resulting non-mosaic IAV can display a peptide on each of the approximately 2700 copies of gp8 on its capsid surface. The tradeoff, however, is a significant limitation in the size of the peptide: only peptides up to 6 amino acids may be displayed without distorting the assembly of the virus (see Figures 2 and 3 ). This size restriction of the displayed peptide may be overcome by generating a mosaic IAV that displays the foreign peptide in only a minority of gp8 on the viral surface [38] . With regards to the display of peptides on gp3, it is possible through mosaic IAVs to present even a whole protein on the viral surface [46] . Although in such a case the protein is expected to be present in up to five copies per virion, studies show that virions carry none, or just one copy of the protein on their surface [39] .
Random Peptide Libraries (RPL) is one common application of IAVs, where random oligopeptides are displayed on different clones of an inovirus particle. The vast diversity of an RPL depends on the size of the oligopeptide where the complexity of an RPL increases exponentially as the size of the oligopeptide increases. RPLs can subsequently be used in many applications including the identification of peptide ligands by receptors, the mapping of substrate sites for enzymes, and the creation of antibody peptide libraries. These applications are reviewed elsewhere [38, 46, 47] . Inovirus display technology has also been used for epitope mapping and vaccine design purposes. RPLs can be used to characterize the epitope of an antibody of interest through biopanning with a monoclonal antibody of interest, which can result in the isolation of mimotopes; these are oligopeptides that mimic the native antibody epitope. The selected recombinant inoviruses that carry mimotopes can then be isolated in order to determine the DNA and amino acid sequence of the displayed oligopeptides. DNA sequencing of such inserts as well as structure prediction analysis can potentially identify the previously unknown target of an antibody. Besides antibody characterization, inoculation of recombinant inoviruses isolated through this approach can potentially be used as vaccine carriers. For example, if a neutralizing antibody against a pathogen is used to screen an RPL, the selected peptides (fused to inoviruses) would mimic the original antibody epitope. Vaccination of animals with these inoviruses could ultimately induce the production of similar antibodies by the vaccinated individual, offering protection from infection against the pathogen. Inovirus display technology has been successfully applied in the development of vaccines against various pathogens (Tables 1 and 2 ). The potential for inovirus display technology to facilitate the mapping of antibody epitopes is of great importance, especially in the case of HIV-1. Epitopes of broadly neutralizing monoclonal anti-HIV-1 antibodies could be rare, vulnerable spots on the surface of a frequently mutating virus such as HIV-1 and therefore, their identification and further study could lead to new drug therapies or vaccine targets. This review focuses particularly on the applications of inovirus display technology that utilizes capsid proteins gp3 and gp8, as those have been used in vaccine development.
Schematic representations of antigen display on the surface of Ff inovirus-associated vectors (IAVs). Foreign antigens are shown as red spheres. The designation on the left denotes the inoviral gene, which can be genetically modified to express an antigen on the outer architecture of the virion. IAVs that contain both the wild type and antigen display capsid proteins are designated by "m" which indicates that the virion is a mosaic. Each Ff virion contains about 2700 copies of major capsid protein gp8, and five copies of each of the minor capsid proteins, gp3, gp6, gp7 and gp9. inovirus-associated vector (bottom) showing the major coat protein gp8 subunits arranged with a combined five-fold rotation axis and an approximate two-fold screw axis [28] . Right, the corresponding surface lattices, identical to those previously published [30] . The lattice diagrams show the relative position of each gp8 subunit on the outer virion surface. The five gp8 subunits of each of the two interlocking pentamers constituting the helical symmetry of the virion are indicated by blue and green dots respectively. The relative virion surface area (about 1400 Å 2 ) associated with each gp8 subunit is marked in yellow. The virion perimetrical (azimuthial) distance is calculated based on a virion diameter of about 65 Å. The displayed antigens, represented by red spheres, are arranged on the surface of the Ff.g8 inovirus-associated vector according to helical symmetry of the virion outer architecture (bottom).
IAVs are effective vaccine carriers and, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 , they have been used successfully in numerous vaccine development studies. They have been utilized in the development of vaccines against a wide variety of viral, protozoan and worm parasites and also against non-infectious diseases like Alzheimer and various types of cancer. All these attempts can be divided in two main sub-categories. The first sub-category, inovirus display technology was used to screen RPLs with monoclonal antibodies and then to select the immunogenic peptides of interest. The selected peptide was used as a vaccine in its soluble form or in conjugation with carrier proteins [55,66,70,81-84, 86-88,90-92,98] . In the second sub-category, similar to the first sub-category, inovirus display technology has been used for epitope mapping and isolation, but in this case, inoviruses were also used as the vaccine carriers for the immunogenic peptides [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] 56, 57, [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [67] [68] [69] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] . In contrast to IAVs, soluble peptides have the disadvantage of being less stable than the same peptides fused to inoviral particles. Soluble peptides have a flexible 3D structure and thus, do not always retain the 3D structure of the desirable epitope. As a result, soluble peptides, unlike inovirus-bound peptides, are less capable of inducing the production of the desirable antibodies [99] . Additionally, the inoviral vectors displaying peptides are highly immunogenic. Their high immunogenicity is reinforced by the ability of inoviruses to display multiple copies of peptides on their surface. Additionally, inoviruses are known for their structural simplicity, which allows the immune system to focus selectively on the displayed peptides and not on the viral carrier [100] . Furthermore, since inoviruses can replicate in E. coli cultures, the cost of vaccine production is low. In summary, IAVs can be used as efficient and cost effective vaccine carriers.
A large number of research studies have focused on the application of inovirus-based vaccines against infectious diseases. A common approach in many of these efforts was to vaccinate animals with inoviruses and to then challenge them with specific pathogens, in order to assess the level of protection against the pathogens. Three of these studies focused on immunization against viral parasites. In 1997, Bastien et al. fused a 15-mer linear epitope of Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) glycoprotein G on inovirus gp3 and used the recombinant inovirus to vaccinate mice [69] . This resulted in a specific humoral response, with the vaccinated animals having complete protection from challenge with the RSV virus [69] . In 2000, Grabowska et al. used monoclonal antibodies against Herpes Simplex Virus type 2 (HSV-2) glycoprotein G2 to screen 15-mer RPLs [65] . The selected recombinant inoviruses were used to vaccinate mice, resulting in a specific humoral response. A high survival rate of vaccinated mice after challenge with a lethal dose of the virus was observed, and the level of protection was proportional to the dose of the inoviral vaccine [65] . Additionally, in 2000, Yu et al. used monoclonal antibodies against the surface glycoprotein of Neurotropic Murine Coronavirus to screen various RPLs [67] . A selected clone displaying a 13-mer peptide induced a humoral immune response but no cellular response in mice. Even so, after lethal virus challenge, three out of six mice survived. [67] . Besides viral infections, inoviral vaccine research has also been applied for systemic candidiasis, a fungal infection caused by Candida albicans. In two separate studies, a specific six amino acid peptide epitope of the fungal heat shock protein 90 was displayed as a fusion with the inoviral coat protein gp8 [73, 74] . After infection with the parasite, mice immunized with the recombinant inoviruses had fewer colony forming units of Candida albicans in the kidney and a longer lifespan [73] . The use of inovirus as a vaccine carrier was particularly successful against Taenia solium, a parasitic worm that uses pigs as intermediate hosts and causes neurocysticercosis, a parasitic disease of the central nervous system, in humans [79] . In 2004, Manoutsarian et al. fused four antigenic peptides (GK1, KETc1, KETc7, KETc12) to inoviruses and the cocktail of recombinant inoviruses was used to vaccinate pigs; as a result, a specific cellular response was induced. Vaccination of pigs protected them against challenge with the pathogen: 1/3 of pigs were totally protected and 2/3 had reduced number of cysticerci [79] . Based on these results, large-scale vaccination of 1047 rural pigs in 16 villages of central Mexico was conducted in 2008. The immunization was successful since the vaccine conferred significant protection against the parasite. Furthermore, this inovirus-based vaccine was more economical compared with to another vaccine made of synthetic peptides. The study was particularly important, not only due to the large scale vaccination attempt with inoviruses, but also due to its effectiveness in significantly reducing the number of cysticerci in the vaccinated animals [101] . Efforts were also made to develop vaccines against the worm Schistosoma japonicum. In 2004, Tang et al. screened a 12-mer RPL with polyclonal serum from infected mice [76] . The selected recombinant inoviruses induced a specific humoral response, which conferred partial protection from parasite challenge in the vaccinated mice [76] . Following this study, in 2006, Wang et al. used the monoclonal antibody SSj14, which targets the parasite to screen a 12-mer RPL [77] . The recombinant inoviruses induced both humoral and cellular responses that significantly protected the vaccinated mice against the worm infection [77] . Additionally, in 2006, Wu et al. used polyclonal serum from infected rabbits to screen a 12-mer RPL [78] . A humoral response was induced in the vaccinated mice, which conferred partial protection from the parasite [78] . In 2008, Villa-Mancera et al., produced a vaccine against Fasciola hepatica, by screening a previously constructed 12-mer inovirus RLP with an anti-cathepsin L monoclonal antibody [75] . Although immunization of sheep with the selected recombinant inoviruses induced a weak, specific humoral response after challenge with the parasite, the vaccinated animals had a remarkable reduction in worm burden compared to controls [75] . An inovirus-based vaccine has been constructed against the parasitic worm Trichinella spiralis. In this case, Gu et al. used a monoclonal antibody against rTs87 antigen to screen a 12-mer RPL [80] . As a result, a humoral response was induced and the vaccinated mice gained partial protection after challenge against the parasite [80] . In summary, the results of the above studies show that the construction of an efficient inovirus-based vaccine that confers protection to the vaccinated animals against the infectious pathogen is achievable through the induction of humoral or cellular immune response or both.
As previously mentioned, inovirus display technology has also been used for the design of vaccines against non-infectious diseases and in some cases, the capability of the vaccine to limit the progression of the disease was evaluated. In 2005, Fang et al. displayed an epitope of the Melanoma Antigen A1 (MAGE A1) in the surface of inovirus fused on gp8 [85] . This resulted in an induction of cellular immune response against the melanoma tumor and in the significant inhibition of tumor growth in the vaccinated mice. In addition, there was an important increase in the survival rate of vaccinated animals [85] . Similar results were obtained in 2002 by Wu et al. in an effort to design a vaccine against murine mastocytoma P815 [89] . An epitope of the P1A tumor antigen was fused to the inoviral surface and the vaccinated mice gained significant protection against tumor growth. Moreover, there was a significant increase in survival rate due to an anti-tumor cellular response that was induced [89] . Some important efforts have also been made for the design of an inovirus-based vaccine against Alzheimer's disease. The main target of these vaccines was the induction of antibodies against β-amyloid plaques. In these studies, the antigenic epitope that was displayed in the inoviral surface was the epitope EGFR, which consists of the four amino acids E, G, F and R and it is part of the β-amyloid peptide. In mice immunized with recombinant inoviruses, the researchers observed a reduction in β-amyloid plaque burden and a specific humoral response [93] [94] [95] [96] . Collectively, these studies show that it is possible to protect vaccinated animals against disease progression, thus alluding to the promising use of such vaccines against non-infectious diseases in humans.
In summary, the utilization of inoviral vectors for vaccine development against infectious and non-infectious non-HIV-1 diseases has produced significant and promising results. First, in the majority of cases, the vaccine was successful since it induced specific humoral or cellular response, or both. Furthermore, in many cases, there was an attempt to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine after challenge against the pathogen in vaccinated animals. In all cases, the vaccine could provide partial, significant or even complete protection against the pathogen. This established the effectiveness of the use of inoviruses as vaccine vectors.
Our knowledge of HIV-1 neutralization epitopes initiated from the isolation of several neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (2F5, 4E10, b12 and 2G12) that were described between 1993 and 1994 [102] [103] [104] . Thus far, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies have been found to target four major epitopes on the HIV-1 envelope gp41 and gp120 glycoproteins [105] [106] [107] . These monoclonal antibodies target the MPER epitope of gp41 (monoclonal antibodies 2F5, 4E10, M66.6, CAP206-CH12 and 10e8) [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] ; the V1V2-glycan of gp120 (PG9, PG16, CH01-04 and PGT 141-145) [116] [117] [118] [119] ; the glycan dependent site of the gp120 V3 loop (PGT121-123, PGT125-131 and PGT135-137) [119] ; and the CD4-binding site (b12, HJ16, CH103-106, VRC01-03, VRC-PG04, VRC-PG04b, VRC-CH30-34, 3BNC117, 3BNC60, NIH45-46, 12A12, 12A21, 8ANC131, 8ANC134, INC9 and IB2530 [102, 114, [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] . Monoclonal antibody 2G12 targets the surface glycans on the outer domain of gp120 that is distinct from the four major epitope target sites described above [102, 104, 129] .
The inovirus display technology has also been applied in vaccination strategies against HIV-1 [130] . However, unlike the successful development of vaccines against non-HIV-1 parasites, these efforts failed. In all published studies (see Table 1 ), the HIV-1 inovirus-display vaccines were made utilizing the broadly neutralizing antibodies 2F5, 2G12 and b12 [50, 52, 54, 55, 59, 62] . The first study for the construction of a vaccine against HIV-1 using inovirus display technology was performed in 1993 by Keller et al., using the 447-52D monoclonal antibody to screen a 15-mer RPL [50] . Vaccination of selected recombinant inoviruses in rabbits resulted in the induction of type-specific neutralizing antibodies [50] . A few years later, in 2001, Zwick et al. used b12 monoclonal antibody to screen a variety of linear and constrained RPLs [52] . However, the vaccination in mice and rabbits with the selected recombinant inoviruses did not result in the production of b12-like antibodies at detectable levels [52] . The same antibody was used in 2005 by Dorgham et al. , in order to screen a 15-mer RPL, and the selected mimotopes were fused to the capsid of inoviruses which were then used to vaccinate mice [54] . The induced antibodies could bind gp160 but they did not have neutralizing potency [54] . In another study in 2007, Wilkinson et al. screened a 9-mer and a constrained 10-mer library with antibody 5145A [55] . This was the only case in which the selected mimotopes were fused in to small heat shock protein (HSP) of the archeaon Methanococcus jannaschii as a carrier protein. Following vaccination of HSP-mimotopes in rabbits, anti-gp120 antibodies without neutralizing potency were produced [55] . The 2G12 antibody was used for the first time in 2008 by Menendez et al. for the screening of a variety of linear and constrained RPLs [59] . Nevertheless, vaccination of selected inoviruses in rabbits induced the production of antibodies that could not bind to gp120 [59] . More recently, in 2011, Rodriguez et al. used the 2F5 antibody to screen a 12-mer and a constrained 7-mer RPL [62] . Vaccination in mice and rabbits led to the production of non-neutralizing antibodies [62] . In most of these studies, the use of inoviral vectors resulted in the induction of a specific humoral response. However, the sera of the vaccinated animals did not have broadly neutralizing ability.
Besides monoclonal antibodies, polyclonal sera from HIV-1-infected patients were also used for the screening RPLs (Table 1) [51, 53, [56] [57] [58] 63] . This approach carries a degree of uncertainty, since it is based on the premise that the polyclonal sera will contain at least one broadly neutralizing monoclonal anti-HIV-1 antibody, meaning that a new neutralizing epitope against it can be isolated from the RPL. It is suggested that long-term non-progressors (HIV-1-infected patients who remain asymptomatic for a long time) are more likely to produce neutralizing antibodies in comparison to AIDS patients, and it is suggested that these neutralizing antibodies in the serum of long-term non-progressors may contribute to the control of viral load [131] [132] [133] . However, this hypothesis has been questioned [134] . Polyclonal serum for the screening of RPLs was used for the first time in 1999 by Scala et al., who screened both linear and constrained 9-mer RPLs [51] . After that, vaccination of selected inoviruses in mice led to the production of neutralizing antibodies. A few years later, in 2007, Rodriguez et al. used polyclonal serum to screen a 7-mer, a 12-mer and a constrained 7-mer RPL [56] . Vaccination in mice induced the production of antibodies that could bind to gp41, but no information was provided about their neutralization potency [56] . Additionally, in 2007, Humbert et al. used polyclonal serum to screen a 7-mer, a 12-mer and a constrained 7-mer RPL [57] . Vaccination of selected recombinant inoviruses in mice induced the production of neutralizing antibodies [57] . The screening of the same RPLs using polyclonal serum from a monkey infected with a Simian-Human Immunodeficiency Virus (SHIV) was performed by the same group. In this study, vaccination in mice was performed using the prime-boost strategy: DNA vaccine as prime (encoding gp160) and a cocktail of recombinant inoviruses as boost. The result was the induction of neutralizing antibodies [58] . In 2013, Gazarian et al. screened a linear 12-mer and constrained 7-mer RPLs using sera from HIV-infected individuals [63] . Vaccination in rabbits resulted in the production of antibodies that bind gp160 [63] . In 2001, non-human primates were used by Chen et al., as an animal model for vaccination with recombinant inoviruses [53] . This group performed screening of a 9-mer and a constrained 9-mer RPL with polyclonal serum isolated from an infected donor. After that, the vaccination of selected inoviruses was performed in rhesus macaques. As a result, sera from the vaccinated macaques exhibited neutralizing activity. Furthermore, the vaccinated macaques were not protected from infection, but four out of five animals were able to control the viral load after challenge against the pathogenic SHIV89.6PD virus. This was a very important result, which underlines the potential of the method. Additionally, no specific CTL response was detected, implying that the control of viral load was an exclusive result of humoral response [53] .
Since the first attempt to induce the production of anti-HIV-1 neutralizing antibodies using inovirus-based vaccines, all efforts to date have not led to the production of broadly neutralizing antibodies in vaccinated animals. This failure could be to a certain extent explained by the usage of the "old generation" monoclonal antibodies (2F5, 2G12 and b12) which were shown to demonstrate autoreactivity properties in vitro studies [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] . In 2010, Verkoczy et al. demonstarted in an in vivo study that Pre-B cells expressing 2F5-like antibodies were unable to maturate in mice, suggesting a triggering of immunological tolerance due to the autoreactive properties of the 2F5-like antibody [140] . Collectively, these studies implied that the screening RPLs using 2F5, 2G12 and b12 could result in inoviral-based vaccines that could trigger immunological tolerance in vaccinated animals. It is important to note, however, that the lack of autoreactivity properties for several of the "next generation" broadly neutralizing antibodies (10e8, PG9, PG16, VRC01-03, VRC-PG04, VRC-PG04b, and VRC-CH30-34) could solve the autoreactivity problems encountered by 2F5, 2G12, and b12.
Despite the fact that the recent isolation of new broadly neutralizing antibodies against HIV-1 has focused the attention of HIV-1 vaccine development on the induction of a humoral anti-HIV-1 response, recent results underline the importance of a cellular anti-HIV-1 response as well [141, 142] . The experimental results concerning inovirus-based vaccines in non-HIV-1 diseases prove that inoviruses can also induce a strong specific cellular response (Tables 1 and 2); this property makes them great candidates as vectors for HIV-1 vaccine design. The ability of inoviruses to induce a cellular immune response was first demonstrated in 2000 by DeBerardinis et al. [143] . In this work, recombinant inoviruses carrying the RT2 epitope and the pep23 epitope of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase in gp8 could induce specific cellular responses in human cell lines in vitro and in mice in vivo against the RT2 peptide. It is interesting that without the pep23 epitope, the cellular response was undetectable. This indicates that the pep23 is a CTL epitope that is necessary for cellular response, possibly because it enables internalization of the recombinant inovirus into the APCs [143] . Therefore, a question arises of whether an epitope fused to the surface of the inovirus can induce a cellular or a humoral response or both. It is suggested that the type of immune response caused by an epitope fused on the surface of the inovirus is dependent on the length and sequence of the peptide [143] . In 2003, Gaubin et al. demonstrated that FITC-labeled fd virions can be internalized in human EBV-B cell lines and the fd virions are successively degraded and targeted both to MHC class I and class II antigen-processing pathways [144] . This was confirmed after endocellular localization of the labeled virions with confocal microscopy. This experiment showed that the inoviruses could be internalized in APCs even without carrying a CTL epitope, but in very low rate. For in vivo experiments however, it is possible that the requirement of a CTL epitope is critical for the induction of a cellular response [144] . In 2011, Sartorius et al. showed that a hybrid fd virion with the anti-DEC-205 scFv antibody fragment fused on gp3 and the OVA257-264 antigenic epitope fused on gp8 can be internalized in human dendritic cells through a specific interaction between the anti-DEC205 scFv and the DEC-205 receptor [145] . In addition, inoculation of mice with the hybrid virions induced a specific cellular response against the OVA257-264 epitope [145] . This important characteristic of inoviral vectors to induce a cellular response was reported in only two studies aimed at developing a HIV-1 inoviral vaccine, possibly due to the complexity of detecting a cellular response and also because it is a labor intensive and time-consuming process. In 2001, Chen et al. attempted to detect a cellular response, but such a response was not induced in that experiment [53] . A more recent research study related to HIV-1, which clearly demonstrates the ability of inoviruses to induce strong cellular response, was performed in 2009 by Pedroza-Roldan et al. [60] . In this effort, an immunodominant CTL epitope of the V3 loop of gp120 (residues 311-320) was expressed as fusion to gp8 of an M13 inovirus. A random peptide library was created by inserting mutations in certain positions of this epitope. A cocktail of inoviruses carrying the V3 loop epitope or variations of this epitope were used for the vaccination of mice and, as a result, a CTL response was induced. The most important result of this study was that the immunization induced long-lasting memory T-cell responses, which were detected seven months after a single immunization [60] . The same vaccination also induced a strong humoral response, since the sera of vaccinated mice could neutralize five out of ten pseudoviruses from a panel [61] . All the above experiments clearly show that the inoviruses are capable of inducing a specific cellular immune response: the ability of the inoviral vectors to induce both arms of adaptive immunity is unique and it could prove to be valuable in the development of a successful HIV-1 vaccine.
In the general field of HIV-1 vaccine design, all studies for the production of anti-HIV-1 broadly neutralizing antibodies through vaccination with either soluble peptides or viral vectors have been unsuccessful. For this reason, some efforts have been directed to the induction of cellular immune response [146, 147] . In recent years, in HIV-1 vaccine phase I and phase II clinical trials, adenoviral vectors have been used in order induce a cellular immune response in HIV-1 vaccinated individuals [148] [149] [150] [151] . However, there are concerns about the safety of these viruses. In 2007, the large-scale phase IIB Merck trial was abruptly terminated because there was evidence that the individuals vaccinated with adenovirus rAd5 vector (expressing gag, pol and nef) became more vulnerable to HIV-1 infection in comparison to controls. It was suggested that the group with the increased risk of being infected with HIV-1 consisted of individuals who were Ad5 seropositive [152] . Other eukaryotic viruses that infect other species and do not replicate in human cells were also tested as candidates HIV vaccine carriers and in theory are safer. For example, the canarypox vector was used in the RV144 phase III clinical trial, the only clinical trial that had positive results to date, offering partial protection (31%) to vaccinated individuals in comparison with control [152, 153] . Apart from safety reasons, the use of adenovirus-based vectors has not been protective. The recent HVTV 505 phase IIB trial that used adenovirus rAd5 as a boost and DNA as prime for vaccination of 2504 human volunteers was abandoned as futile [150] . Recently, a rhesus macaque cytomegalovirus (RhCMV) vector successfully induced a persisting CTL response in rhesus macaques that strongly protected the vaccinated animals from challenge against the pathogenic SIVmac239 strain. Importantly, this study, 50% of the vaccinated animals reduced the viral load to undetectable levels [141, 142] . However, the design of a human version of this CMV vector could impose safety risks, since the human CMV is a persistent and pathogenic human virus [146] . Therefore, various types of eukaryotic viral vectors are currently under investigation. These are reviewed elsewhere [154, 155] . However, the use of a eukaryotic virus is accompanied by serious safety concerns. As an alternative, the use of prokaryotic viruses such as inoviruses, may be utilized which have a decisively lower safety risk to humans. Even if inoviruses could infect a eukaryotic cell, the assembly of the new prokaryotic virions cannot take place without the specific conditions that exist in the inter-membrane area of the E. coli and without the presence of the specific E. coli enzyme leader peptidase that does not exist in human cells [156, 157] . Furthermore, there was a phase I case study in 2006 where fd inoviruses were intravenously infused in humans (for purposes unrelated to vaccination), causing no side effects or even allergic reactions in any of the eight volunteers. To our knowledge, this is the only case where inoviruses were infused in humans [158] . Therefore, in contrast to other viral vectors, the use of inoviruses does not impose a major safety risk to humans. This characteristic of inoviral vectors along with their capability to trigger both cellular and humoral immune responses makes them an attractive option as vaccine vectors.
During the last two decades, inoviral vectors have been used in the development of vaccines against various infectious parasites and against non-infectious diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's with promising results. While the applications of inovirus display technology in vaccine design against non-HIV-1 diseases have been mostly successful, the design of a HIV-1 vaccine development has so far been disappointing. A major obstacle has been the use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies plagued with autoreactivity properties. Screening of RPLs with these antibodies resulted in the isolation of peptides that, as vaccine antigens, were unsuccessful in inducing a specific humoral response that would produce neutralizing antibodies. The recent isolation of antibodies such as VRC01 and 10E8 with more neutralizing breadth and potency without autoreactivity properties than the previously utilized antibodies may overcome this obstacle [115, 124] . Particularly, the induction of VRC01-like and 10E8-like antibodies could be a feasible target, since these antibodies also seem to be produced from a significant percentage of the HIV-1-infected population [115, 126, 127] . While humoral responses have been well documented, cellular responses have not been assessed in most studies for the design of a HIV-1 vaccine using inoviruses. The only study in which a cellular anti-HIV-1 response was detected also reported a successful induction of a long-lasting memory CTL response seven months after a single vaccination in mice with inoviral particles [60] , demonstrating that the induction of cellular immunity against HIV-1 using inoviruses is feasible. IAVs are advantageous in that they can induce both arms of adaptive immunity. This finding could therefore be of importance in future efforts for the design of a HIV-1 vaccine.
Moreover, IAVs have unique characteristics compared to other viral vectors: they are stable, they can display a peptide in multiple (from few to thousands) copies on their surface and such constructs are very immunogenic without the use of an adjuvant. In addition, IAVs allow the immune system to focus on a specific epitope of interest instead of the whole protein, which is of great importance, since an important aspect for successful HIV-1 vaccine design is to focus on the induction of neutralizing antibodies against the specific neutralizing epitopes while at the same time avoiding the induction of ineffective antibodies against the numerous non-neutralizing epitopes of the HIV-1 glycoproteins, which act as decoys for the immune system. Ideally, an effective HIV-1 vaccine should be able to stimulate both humoral and cellular immune responses. Recently, adenoviral vectors were tested in clinical trials as HIV-1 vaccine carriers in order to induce cellular immunity, but they were shown to impose serious health risks for humans. On the other hand, IAVs are able to induce cellular immunity and at the same time they have been demonstrated to be safe for administration in animals and humans. These characteristics of IAVs, conferred by their structural and biological properties, make them effective antigen display vectors that can induce strong and specific humoral and cellular immune responses against the displayed antigen. These properties of IAVs along with newly discovered broadly neutralizing anti-HIV-1 antibodies, pave the way for the development of an effective HIV-1 vaccine. | What are inovirus-associated vectors? | 325 | engineered, non-lytic, filamentous bacteriophages | 454 |
1,730 | Architectural Insight into Inovirus-Associated Vectors (IAVs) and Development of IAV-Based Vaccines Inducing Humoral and Cellular Responses: Implications in HIV-1 Vaccines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4276942/
SHA: f6e6534cb423c1823ad38d7d5c0a98c303f2efdb
Authors: Hassapis, Kyriakos A.; Stylianou, Dora C.; Kostrikis, Leondios G.
Date: 2014-12-17
DOI: 10.3390/v6125047
License: cc-by
Abstract: Inovirus-associated vectors (IAVs) are engineered, non-lytic, filamentous bacteriophages that are assembled primarily from thousands of copies of the major coat protein gp8 and just five copies of each of the four minor coat proteins gp3, gp6, gp7 and gp9. Inovirus display studies have shown that the architecture of inoviruses makes all coat proteins of the inoviral particle accessible to the outside. This particular feature of IAVs allows foreign antigenic peptides to be displayed on the outer surface of the virion fused to its coat proteins and for more than two decades has been exploited in many applications including antibody or peptide display libraries, drug design, and vaccine development against infectious and non-infectious diseases. As vaccine carriers, IAVs have been shown to elicit both a cellular and humoral response against various pathogens through the display of antibody epitopes on their coat proteins. Despite their high immunogenicity, the goal of developing an effective vaccine against HIV-1 has not yet materialized. One possible limitation of previous efforts was the use of broadly neutralizing antibodies, which exhibited autoreactivity properties. In the past five years, however, new, more potent broadly neutralizing antibodies that do not exhibit autoreactivity properties have been isolated from HIV-1 infected individuals, suggesting that vaccination strategies aimed at producing such broadly neutralizing antibodies may confer protection against infection. The utilization of these new, broadly neutralizing antibodies in combination with the architectural traits of IAVs have driven the current developments in the design of an inovirus-based vaccine against HIV-1. This article reviews the applications of IAVs in vaccine development, with particular emphasis on the design of inoviral-based vaccines against HIV-1.
Text: Filamentous bacterial viruses are a group of thread-like viruses containing single-stranded DNA genomes. Collectively, they constitute the genus Inovirus in the family Inoviridae, the terms deriving from the Greek word Ίνα for filament [1] [2] [3] , and they are commonly called filamentous bacteriophages. There are over 50 different known individual species of filamentous viruses; the majority of them capable of infecting Gram-negative bacteria. The complex interaction between filamentous phages and their bacterial hosts is specified by receptor organelles that are usually encoded by transmissible plasmids [1, 4] . One of the most intriguing features of inoviruses is that they are assembled at the host membrane, where the major capsid protein subunits replace the single-stranded DNA binding protein, and progeny virions are continuously extruded into the medium without killing the infected cell, giving rise to titers of up to 10 13 virions per milliliter of liquid culture [5, 6] . The high virus production is associated only with a mild retardation of the host's growth, which gives rise to the formation of opaque plaques on bacterial lawns. In this sense, filamentous viruses bear a resemblance to symbiotic non-pathogenic animal viruses rather than phages, the term coming from the Greek word φάγος for destroyer. Inovirus virions are flexible and slender cylindrical filaments [2, 3] less than 10 nm in diameter and in the order of 1000 nm in length (see details in Figure 1 ). Each virion has several thousand identical major capsid or coat protein subunits packaging a circular single-stranded DNA molecule. Each virion also has a few specific minor proteins at each end, those at one end (proximal end) for attachment during infection, and those at the other end (distal end) for nucleation and initiation of the assembly process at the host's membrane.
The number of species of inovirus isolated and characterized in different parts of the world is rather large [1] . Among E. coli inoviruses, the best-studied and most-exploited is Ff, a group of closely related viruses (fd, f1 and M13) (for review see [4, 6] ) that infect male (F + ) strains of E. coli. All Ff have almost identical DNA and protein sequences, gene organization, and most other structural parameters [7] [8] [9] . Fd, M13 and f1 differ in their genomes at only about 100 positions out of 6408 nucleotides for f1 and fd or 6407 nucleotides for M13. The genetics and life cycle of three viruses f1, fd and M13 have been studied extensively and we know a great deal about them. The Ff genome contains ten tightly arranged genes and a non-coding intergenic region, which contains the packaging signal [10] [11] [12] , the (+) and (−) origins of DNA replication, and the major rho-dependent transcriptional terminator (for recent review see [4] ). Five of the ten viral genes encode proteins found in the virion (g3, g6, g8, g7 and g9). Genes 3 and 6 are found on the proximal end of the virion and are essential for infectivity and stabilization, whereas, gene 7 and gene 9 proteins, gp7 and gp9, respectively, are located at the distal end of the virion and are responsible for the initiation assembly [13] [14] [15] . In the end-to-end model illustrated in Figure 1 , both the proximal (gp7 and gp9) and distal (gp3 and gp6) minor coat protein subunits maintain the fivefold axial symmetry of the major coat protein gp8 subunits along the virion.
The life cycle of Ff filamentous viruses starts with the adsorption of the virus to the tip of the F + specific pilus of E. coli. Attachment takes place by means of an adsorption structure composed of five copies of gp3, located at the proximal end of the virion (see Figure 1 ), mainly through sequential binding of the gp3 N2 domain with the tip of the F pilus and the N1 domain with the periplasmic domain III of TolA (for recent review see reference 4). After adsorption, the virus is drawn to the surface of the cell where the major coat protein gp8 subunits become associated with the inner membrane of the cell [16] [17] [18] and the circular single-stranded DNA (cssDNA) is released into the cytoplasm. Inside the cytoplasm, the cssDNA is converted into a parental double-stranded replicative form (RF). Ff inoviruses replicate their genome by a rolling-circle mechanism. Consecutive transcription from the RF DNA, and translation as well an asymmetric single strand DNA synthesis lead to an intracellular pool of viral precursor complexes, which contain viral single-stranded DNA molecules bound with gp5 protein subunits, except a small hairpin loop that serves as the packaging signal for virion assembly [10] [11] [12] . The major coat protein gp8 subunits are synthesized with a signal peptide sequence that facilitates their transport to and insertion into the bacterial membrane, where they are cleaved by signal peptidase. After cleavage, the mature coat protein is left spanning the membrane with its C terminus in the cytoplasm and the N terminus outside the cytoplasm in the periplasm [19] [20] [21] . The assembly of filamentous viruses takes place at the membrane where the gp5 subunits are replaced by gp8 subunits. The first step of the assembly sequence is the binding of the packaging signal, a site of about 30 nucleotides that forms a hairpin loop, with presumably five subunits of each of the minor coat proteins gp7 and gp9 [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] . Virus assembly proceeds as single-stranded DNA passes through the membrane and more mature coat protein gp8 subunits are added until the entire DNA molecule is packaged. At the distal end of the virion, five copies of each of gp6 and gp3 are added and the complete virion is released into the medium [23, 27] . The assembly of inoviruses on the bacterial inner membrane is a harmonized sequential process that involves a variety of interactions between viral-encoded proteins (gp1, gp4 and gp11) and host-encoded proteins, without killing the host bacterium (reviewed by [4] ).
The structure of the Ff virus has been extensively studied by a number of laboratories in the last five decades. However, despite all of the efforts, the structure has not been completely determined and some critical questions remain unanswered. The major difficulty is that these viruses cannot be crystallized. They can be oriented in fibers suitable for X-ray fiber diffraction studies, but these are not crystals. Interpretations of the fiber diffraction patterns together with a number of physicochemical measurements, have shown that the major coat protein gp8 subunits have a five-start helical symmetry (5-fold rotation axis) and are referred to as Class I [28] [29] [30] strictly based on the fundamental symmetry of the protein subunits helices as determined by fiber diffraction (reviewed by [2] ). On the other hand, the structure of the packaged ssDNA molecule in the virion, including its helical symmetry and the interactions with the protein sheath, is one of the least understood aspects. The structure of the DNA inside these viruses cannot be determined by conventional X-ray fiber diffraction techniques, partly because of the low DNA content in the virions. Theoretical studies have demonstrated that the single-stranded DNA molecule is uniquely packaged inside the Ff virion by predominant electrostatic interactions [3, 31] .
A 3D scale schematic model of an end-to-end Ff (fd) inoviral virion. The model is based on published physical data including the determined helical parameters of the major coat protein gp8 and the X-ray structure of the N1-N2 domains of the minor coat protein gp3. The model shows the relative location of the circular single-stranded DNA (cssDNA) genome (6408 nucleotides long, illustrated as blue ribbons), some structural details of the outer virion capsid (major coat protein pg8) and the four minor coat proteins (gp6, gp3, gp7 and gp9) present at the ends of the virion. On top, a digital scanning transmission electron micrograph (STEM) of unstained fd virus, prepared by the wet-film technique according to previously established procedures of the Brookhaven STEM facility [32] [33] [34] . The ends of one complete virion are designated by arrows. The data were collected in collaboration with L.A. Day and J. S. Wall at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton New York. Under these STEM conditions fd virions are about 8800 Å long and about 65 Å in diameter [3] . In the middle, a proposed end-to-end scale 3D diagram of fd virion is presented. The entire fd virion is composed of about 2700 subunits of gp8 with the exception of its two ends. Architectural details of an axial slab 176 Å long (about 1/50 of the virion length) consisting entirely of subunits of major coat protein gp8. The structure of the 50-amino-acid-long and extended α-helical gp8, shown below in both surface and ribbon images, is presented in the virion model as a cylindrical stack of 25 gray disks about 70 Å long and 10 Å in diameter. The images of gp8 were derived from coordinates of RCSB PDB database accession number 2cOW [35] using PyMOL [36] . The gp8 subunits are arranged with a helical symmetry that includes a two-fold screw axis and a five-fold rotation axis, consisting of two pentamers of pg8 [28] [29] [30] 35] . The two pentamers are architecturally related to each other by a translation of about 16 Å along the virion axis and a rotation of 36° about the axis [28] . The proximal end of the virion, shown on the left, is composed of five copies of each of the minor coat proteins gp6 and gp3 (for a recent review see [4] ). The proximal end is modeled based on partial information known about the structures of gp6 and gp3. Specifically, the N-terminal portion of gp6 was modeled following the helical parameters of gp8, based on protein sequence homology between the two [23] [24] [25] . Five copies of gp3 subunits were modeled based on structural information of the N1-N2 domains. The images of the N1-N2 domains of gp3 are shown below and were derived from coordinates of RCSB PDB database accession number 1g3p [36] using PyMOL. The domain organization of gp3 is also shown. The distal end of the virion (right) consists of five copies of each minor coat proteins gp7 and gp9, modeled following the helical parameters of gp8 according to a previously published model [25] .
The easy genetic manipulation of inoviruses and the possibility of inserting random oligonucleotides into their genome set the foundation for inovirus display (phage display) technology [37, 38] . Expression of these genetically modified inoviruses results in the presentation of oligopeptides as fusion proteins on the surface of the virion and are herein termed IAVs for inovirus-associated vectors. IAVs can be modified to express an oligopeptide on either all or on some copies of a particular capsid protein. One possibility is to insert an oligonucleotide sequence of interest in the viral genome to create a fusion with capsid protein gp3, gp7, gp8 or gp9, so that the oligopeptide is displayed on every copy of the capsid protein. Alternatively, a phagemid vector can be used, which carries an extra copy of a capsid protein to which the oligonucleotide is fused. Coinfection of bacterial hosts with the phagemid vector and a replication deficient helper phage, that carries the wild type capsid protein, would result in mosaic inovirus particles. That is, they will contain copies of both the wild type coat protein and the recombinant protein that contains the oligopeptide of interest [39] . Non-mosaic and mosaic IAVs that display a peptide on gp3 or gp8 have been recently reviewed [4] while IAVs that display a peptide on gp7 or gp9 have been reviewed elsewhere [40] [41] [42] . In contrast to the other four-capsid proteins, gp6 capsid protein has only been utilized for the production of mosaic virions [43] [44] [45] . Figure 2 illustrates the display of an antigen on each of the five capsid proteins of an IAV as indicated in published literature. It also introduces a new terminology to denote the gene to which the oligopeptides are fused to and whether the virion is a mosaic. To display many copies of an oligopeptide on an IAV, the ideal capsid protein to utilize is gp8. The resulting non-mosaic IAV can display a peptide on each of the approximately 2700 copies of gp8 on its capsid surface. The tradeoff, however, is a significant limitation in the size of the peptide: only peptides up to 6 amino acids may be displayed without distorting the assembly of the virus (see Figures 2 and 3 ). This size restriction of the displayed peptide may be overcome by generating a mosaic IAV that displays the foreign peptide in only a minority of gp8 on the viral surface [38] . With regards to the display of peptides on gp3, it is possible through mosaic IAVs to present even a whole protein on the viral surface [46] . Although in such a case the protein is expected to be present in up to five copies per virion, studies show that virions carry none, or just one copy of the protein on their surface [39] .
Random Peptide Libraries (RPL) is one common application of IAVs, where random oligopeptides are displayed on different clones of an inovirus particle. The vast diversity of an RPL depends on the size of the oligopeptide where the complexity of an RPL increases exponentially as the size of the oligopeptide increases. RPLs can subsequently be used in many applications including the identification of peptide ligands by receptors, the mapping of substrate sites for enzymes, and the creation of antibody peptide libraries. These applications are reviewed elsewhere [38, 46, 47] . Inovirus display technology has also been used for epitope mapping and vaccine design purposes. RPLs can be used to characterize the epitope of an antibody of interest through biopanning with a monoclonal antibody of interest, which can result in the isolation of mimotopes; these are oligopeptides that mimic the native antibody epitope. The selected recombinant inoviruses that carry mimotopes can then be isolated in order to determine the DNA and amino acid sequence of the displayed oligopeptides. DNA sequencing of such inserts as well as structure prediction analysis can potentially identify the previously unknown target of an antibody. Besides antibody characterization, inoculation of recombinant inoviruses isolated through this approach can potentially be used as vaccine carriers. For example, if a neutralizing antibody against a pathogen is used to screen an RPL, the selected peptides (fused to inoviruses) would mimic the original antibody epitope. Vaccination of animals with these inoviruses could ultimately induce the production of similar antibodies by the vaccinated individual, offering protection from infection against the pathogen. Inovirus display technology has been successfully applied in the development of vaccines against various pathogens (Tables 1 and 2 ). The potential for inovirus display technology to facilitate the mapping of antibody epitopes is of great importance, especially in the case of HIV-1. Epitopes of broadly neutralizing monoclonal anti-HIV-1 antibodies could be rare, vulnerable spots on the surface of a frequently mutating virus such as HIV-1 and therefore, their identification and further study could lead to new drug therapies or vaccine targets. This review focuses particularly on the applications of inovirus display technology that utilizes capsid proteins gp3 and gp8, as those have been used in vaccine development.
Schematic representations of antigen display on the surface of Ff inovirus-associated vectors (IAVs). Foreign antigens are shown as red spheres. The designation on the left denotes the inoviral gene, which can be genetically modified to express an antigen on the outer architecture of the virion. IAVs that contain both the wild type and antigen display capsid proteins are designated by "m" which indicates that the virion is a mosaic. Each Ff virion contains about 2700 copies of major capsid protein gp8, and five copies of each of the minor capsid proteins, gp3, gp6, gp7 and gp9. inovirus-associated vector (bottom) showing the major coat protein gp8 subunits arranged with a combined five-fold rotation axis and an approximate two-fold screw axis [28] . Right, the corresponding surface lattices, identical to those previously published [30] . The lattice diagrams show the relative position of each gp8 subunit on the outer virion surface. The five gp8 subunits of each of the two interlocking pentamers constituting the helical symmetry of the virion are indicated by blue and green dots respectively. The relative virion surface area (about 1400 Å 2 ) associated with each gp8 subunit is marked in yellow. The virion perimetrical (azimuthial) distance is calculated based on a virion diameter of about 65 Å. The displayed antigens, represented by red spheres, are arranged on the surface of the Ff.g8 inovirus-associated vector according to helical symmetry of the virion outer architecture (bottom).
IAVs are effective vaccine carriers and, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 , they have been used successfully in numerous vaccine development studies. They have been utilized in the development of vaccines against a wide variety of viral, protozoan and worm parasites and also against non-infectious diseases like Alzheimer and various types of cancer. All these attempts can be divided in two main sub-categories. The first sub-category, inovirus display technology was used to screen RPLs with monoclonal antibodies and then to select the immunogenic peptides of interest. The selected peptide was used as a vaccine in its soluble form or in conjugation with carrier proteins [55,66,70,81-84, 86-88,90-92,98] . In the second sub-category, similar to the first sub-category, inovirus display technology has been used for epitope mapping and isolation, but in this case, inoviruses were also used as the vaccine carriers for the immunogenic peptides [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] 56, 57, [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [67] [68] [69] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] . In contrast to IAVs, soluble peptides have the disadvantage of being less stable than the same peptides fused to inoviral particles. Soluble peptides have a flexible 3D structure and thus, do not always retain the 3D structure of the desirable epitope. As a result, soluble peptides, unlike inovirus-bound peptides, are less capable of inducing the production of the desirable antibodies [99] . Additionally, the inoviral vectors displaying peptides are highly immunogenic. Their high immunogenicity is reinforced by the ability of inoviruses to display multiple copies of peptides on their surface. Additionally, inoviruses are known for their structural simplicity, which allows the immune system to focus selectively on the displayed peptides and not on the viral carrier [100] . Furthermore, since inoviruses can replicate in E. coli cultures, the cost of vaccine production is low. In summary, IAVs can be used as efficient and cost effective vaccine carriers.
A large number of research studies have focused on the application of inovirus-based vaccines against infectious diseases. A common approach in many of these efforts was to vaccinate animals with inoviruses and to then challenge them with specific pathogens, in order to assess the level of protection against the pathogens. Three of these studies focused on immunization against viral parasites. In 1997, Bastien et al. fused a 15-mer linear epitope of Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) glycoprotein G on inovirus gp3 and used the recombinant inovirus to vaccinate mice [69] . This resulted in a specific humoral response, with the vaccinated animals having complete protection from challenge with the RSV virus [69] . In 2000, Grabowska et al. used monoclonal antibodies against Herpes Simplex Virus type 2 (HSV-2) glycoprotein G2 to screen 15-mer RPLs [65] . The selected recombinant inoviruses were used to vaccinate mice, resulting in a specific humoral response. A high survival rate of vaccinated mice after challenge with a lethal dose of the virus was observed, and the level of protection was proportional to the dose of the inoviral vaccine [65] . Additionally, in 2000, Yu et al. used monoclonal antibodies against the surface glycoprotein of Neurotropic Murine Coronavirus to screen various RPLs [67] . A selected clone displaying a 13-mer peptide induced a humoral immune response but no cellular response in mice. Even so, after lethal virus challenge, three out of six mice survived. [67] . Besides viral infections, inoviral vaccine research has also been applied for systemic candidiasis, a fungal infection caused by Candida albicans. In two separate studies, a specific six amino acid peptide epitope of the fungal heat shock protein 90 was displayed as a fusion with the inoviral coat protein gp8 [73, 74] . After infection with the parasite, mice immunized with the recombinant inoviruses had fewer colony forming units of Candida albicans in the kidney and a longer lifespan [73] . The use of inovirus as a vaccine carrier was particularly successful against Taenia solium, a parasitic worm that uses pigs as intermediate hosts and causes neurocysticercosis, a parasitic disease of the central nervous system, in humans [79] . In 2004, Manoutsarian et al. fused four antigenic peptides (GK1, KETc1, KETc7, KETc12) to inoviruses and the cocktail of recombinant inoviruses was used to vaccinate pigs; as a result, a specific cellular response was induced. Vaccination of pigs protected them against challenge with the pathogen: 1/3 of pigs were totally protected and 2/3 had reduced number of cysticerci [79] . Based on these results, large-scale vaccination of 1047 rural pigs in 16 villages of central Mexico was conducted in 2008. The immunization was successful since the vaccine conferred significant protection against the parasite. Furthermore, this inovirus-based vaccine was more economical compared with to another vaccine made of synthetic peptides. The study was particularly important, not only due to the large scale vaccination attempt with inoviruses, but also due to its effectiveness in significantly reducing the number of cysticerci in the vaccinated animals [101] . Efforts were also made to develop vaccines against the worm Schistosoma japonicum. In 2004, Tang et al. screened a 12-mer RPL with polyclonal serum from infected mice [76] . The selected recombinant inoviruses induced a specific humoral response, which conferred partial protection from parasite challenge in the vaccinated mice [76] . Following this study, in 2006, Wang et al. used the monoclonal antibody SSj14, which targets the parasite to screen a 12-mer RPL [77] . The recombinant inoviruses induced both humoral and cellular responses that significantly protected the vaccinated mice against the worm infection [77] . Additionally, in 2006, Wu et al. used polyclonal serum from infected rabbits to screen a 12-mer RPL [78] . A humoral response was induced in the vaccinated mice, which conferred partial protection from the parasite [78] . In 2008, Villa-Mancera et al., produced a vaccine against Fasciola hepatica, by screening a previously constructed 12-mer inovirus RLP with an anti-cathepsin L monoclonal antibody [75] . Although immunization of sheep with the selected recombinant inoviruses induced a weak, specific humoral response after challenge with the parasite, the vaccinated animals had a remarkable reduction in worm burden compared to controls [75] . An inovirus-based vaccine has been constructed against the parasitic worm Trichinella spiralis. In this case, Gu et al. used a monoclonal antibody against rTs87 antigen to screen a 12-mer RPL [80] . As a result, a humoral response was induced and the vaccinated mice gained partial protection after challenge against the parasite [80] . In summary, the results of the above studies show that the construction of an efficient inovirus-based vaccine that confers protection to the vaccinated animals against the infectious pathogen is achievable through the induction of humoral or cellular immune response or both.
As previously mentioned, inovirus display technology has also been used for the design of vaccines against non-infectious diseases and in some cases, the capability of the vaccine to limit the progression of the disease was evaluated. In 2005, Fang et al. displayed an epitope of the Melanoma Antigen A1 (MAGE A1) in the surface of inovirus fused on gp8 [85] . This resulted in an induction of cellular immune response against the melanoma tumor and in the significant inhibition of tumor growth in the vaccinated mice. In addition, there was an important increase in the survival rate of vaccinated animals [85] . Similar results were obtained in 2002 by Wu et al. in an effort to design a vaccine against murine mastocytoma P815 [89] . An epitope of the P1A tumor antigen was fused to the inoviral surface and the vaccinated mice gained significant protection against tumor growth. Moreover, there was a significant increase in survival rate due to an anti-tumor cellular response that was induced [89] . Some important efforts have also been made for the design of an inovirus-based vaccine against Alzheimer's disease. The main target of these vaccines was the induction of antibodies against β-amyloid plaques. In these studies, the antigenic epitope that was displayed in the inoviral surface was the epitope EGFR, which consists of the four amino acids E, G, F and R and it is part of the β-amyloid peptide. In mice immunized with recombinant inoviruses, the researchers observed a reduction in β-amyloid plaque burden and a specific humoral response [93] [94] [95] [96] . Collectively, these studies show that it is possible to protect vaccinated animals against disease progression, thus alluding to the promising use of such vaccines against non-infectious diseases in humans.
In summary, the utilization of inoviral vectors for vaccine development against infectious and non-infectious non-HIV-1 diseases has produced significant and promising results. First, in the majority of cases, the vaccine was successful since it induced specific humoral or cellular response, or both. Furthermore, in many cases, there was an attempt to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine after challenge against the pathogen in vaccinated animals. In all cases, the vaccine could provide partial, significant or even complete protection against the pathogen. This established the effectiveness of the use of inoviruses as vaccine vectors.
Our knowledge of HIV-1 neutralization epitopes initiated from the isolation of several neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (2F5, 4E10, b12 and 2G12) that were described between 1993 and 1994 [102] [103] [104] . Thus far, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies have been found to target four major epitopes on the HIV-1 envelope gp41 and gp120 glycoproteins [105] [106] [107] . These monoclonal antibodies target the MPER epitope of gp41 (monoclonal antibodies 2F5, 4E10, M66.6, CAP206-CH12 and 10e8) [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] ; the V1V2-glycan of gp120 (PG9, PG16, CH01-04 and PGT 141-145) [116] [117] [118] [119] ; the glycan dependent site of the gp120 V3 loop (PGT121-123, PGT125-131 and PGT135-137) [119] ; and the CD4-binding site (b12, HJ16, CH103-106, VRC01-03, VRC-PG04, VRC-PG04b, VRC-CH30-34, 3BNC117, 3BNC60, NIH45-46, 12A12, 12A21, 8ANC131, 8ANC134, INC9 and IB2530 [102, 114, [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] . Monoclonal antibody 2G12 targets the surface glycans on the outer domain of gp120 that is distinct from the four major epitope target sites described above [102, 104, 129] .
The inovirus display technology has also been applied in vaccination strategies against HIV-1 [130] . However, unlike the successful development of vaccines against non-HIV-1 parasites, these efforts failed. In all published studies (see Table 1 ), the HIV-1 inovirus-display vaccines were made utilizing the broadly neutralizing antibodies 2F5, 2G12 and b12 [50, 52, 54, 55, 59, 62] . The first study for the construction of a vaccine against HIV-1 using inovirus display technology was performed in 1993 by Keller et al., using the 447-52D monoclonal antibody to screen a 15-mer RPL [50] . Vaccination of selected recombinant inoviruses in rabbits resulted in the induction of type-specific neutralizing antibodies [50] . A few years later, in 2001, Zwick et al. used b12 monoclonal antibody to screen a variety of linear and constrained RPLs [52] . However, the vaccination in mice and rabbits with the selected recombinant inoviruses did not result in the production of b12-like antibodies at detectable levels [52] . The same antibody was used in 2005 by Dorgham et al. , in order to screen a 15-mer RPL, and the selected mimotopes were fused to the capsid of inoviruses which were then used to vaccinate mice [54] . The induced antibodies could bind gp160 but they did not have neutralizing potency [54] . In another study in 2007, Wilkinson et al. screened a 9-mer and a constrained 10-mer library with antibody 5145A [55] . This was the only case in which the selected mimotopes were fused in to small heat shock protein (HSP) of the archeaon Methanococcus jannaschii as a carrier protein. Following vaccination of HSP-mimotopes in rabbits, anti-gp120 antibodies without neutralizing potency were produced [55] . The 2G12 antibody was used for the first time in 2008 by Menendez et al. for the screening of a variety of linear and constrained RPLs [59] . Nevertheless, vaccination of selected inoviruses in rabbits induced the production of antibodies that could not bind to gp120 [59] . More recently, in 2011, Rodriguez et al. used the 2F5 antibody to screen a 12-mer and a constrained 7-mer RPL [62] . Vaccination in mice and rabbits led to the production of non-neutralizing antibodies [62] . In most of these studies, the use of inoviral vectors resulted in the induction of a specific humoral response. However, the sera of the vaccinated animals did not have broadly neutralizing ability.
Besides monoclonal antibodies, polyclonal sera from HIV-1-infected patients were also used for the screening RPLs (Table 1) [51, 53, [56] [57] [58] 63] . This approach carries a degree of uncertainty, since it is based on the premise that the polyclonal sera will contain at least one broadly neutralizing monoclonal anti-HIV-1 antibody, meaning that a new neutralizing epitope against it can be isolated from the RPL. It is suggested that long-term non-progressors (HIV-1-infected patients who remain asymptomatic for a long time) are more likely to produce neutralizing antibodies in comparison to AIDS patients, and it is suggested that these neutralizing antibodies in the serum of long-term non-progressors may contribute to the control of viral load [131] [132] [133] . However, this hypothesis has been questioned [134] . Polyclonal serum for the screening of RPLs was used for the first time in 1999 by Scala et al., who screened both linear and constrained 9-mer RPLs [51] . After that, vaccination of selected inoviruses in mice led to the production of neutralizing antibodies. A few years later, in 2007, Rodriguez et al. used polyclonal serum to screen a 7-mer, a 12-mer and a constrained 7-mer RPL [56] . Vaccination in mice induced the production of antibodies that could bind to gp41, but no information was provided about their neutralization potency [56] . Additionally, in 2007, Humbert et al. used polyclonal serum to screen a 7-mer, a 12-mer and a constrained 7-mer RPL [57] . Vaccination of selected recombinant inoviruses in mice induced the production of neutralizing antibodies [57] . The screening of the same RPLs using polyclonal serum from a monkey infected with a Simian-Human Immunodeficiency Virus (SHIV) was performed by the same group. In this study, vaccination in mice was performed using the prime-boost strategy: DNA vaccine as prime (encoding gp160) and a cocktail of recombinant inoviruses as boost. The result was the induction of neutralizing antibodies [58] . In 2013, Gazarian et al. screened a linear 12-mer and constrained 7-mer RPLs using sera from HIV-infected individuals [63] . Vaccination in rabbits resulted in the production of antibodies that bind gp160 [63] . In 2001, non-human primates were used by Chen et al., as an animal model for vaccination with recombinant inoviruses [53] . This group performed screening of a 9-mer and a constrained 9-mer RPL with polyclonal serum isolated from an infected donor. After that, the vaccination of selected inoviruses was performed in rhesus macaques. As a result, sera from the vaccinated macaques exhibited neutralizing activity. Furthermore, the vaccinated macaques were not protected from infection, but four out of five animals were able to control the viral load after challenge against the pathogenic SHIV89.6PD virus. This was a very important result, which underlines the potential of the method. Additionally, no specific CTL response was detected, implying that the control of viral load was an exclusive result of humoral response [53] .
Since the first attempt to induce the production of anti-HIV-1 neutralizing antibodies using inovirus-based vaccines, all efforts to date have not led to the production of broadly neutralizing antibodies in vaccinated animals. This failure could be to a certain extent explained by the usage of the "old generation" monoclonal antibodies (2F5, 2G12 and b12) which were shown to demonstrate autoreactivity properties in vitro studies [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] . In 2010, Verkoczy et al. demonstarted in an in vivo study that Pre-B cells expressing 2F5-like antibodies were unable to maturate in mice, suggesting a triggering of immunological tolerance due to the autoreactive properties of the 2F5-like antibody [140] . Collectively, these studies implied that the screening RPLs using 2F5, 2G12 and b12 could result in inoviral-based vaccines that could trigger immunological tolerance in vaccinated animals. It is important to note, however, that the lack of autoreactivity properties for several of the "next generation" broadly neutralizing antibodies (10e8, PG9, PG16, VRC01-03, VRC-PG04, VRC-PG04b, and VRC-CH30-34) could solve the autoreactivity problems encountered by 2F5, 2G12, and b12.
Despite the fact that the recent isolation of new broadly neutralizing antibodies against HIV-1 has focused the attention of HIV-1 vaccine development on the induction of a humoral anti-HIV-1 response, recent results underline the importance of a cellular anti-HIV-1 response as well [141, 142] . The experimental results concerning inovirus-based vaccines in non-HIV-1 diseases prove that inoviruses can also induce a strong specific cellular response (Tables 1 and 2); this property makes them great candidates as vectors for HIV-1 vaccine design. The ability of inoviruses to induce a cellular immune response was first demonstrated in 2000 by DeBerardinis et al. [143] . In this work, recombinant inoviruses carrying the RT2 epitope and the pep23 epitope of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase in gp8 could induce specific cellular responses in human cell lines in vitro and in mice in vivo against the RT2 peptide. It is interesting that without the pep23 epitope, the cellular response was undetectable. This indicates that the pep23 is a CTL epitope that is necessary for cellular response, possibly because it enables internalization of the recombinant inovirus into the APCs [143] . Therefore, a question arises of whether an epitope fused to the surface of the inovirus can induce a cellular or a humoral response or both. It is suggested that the type of immune response caused by an epitope fused on the surface of the inovirus is dependent on the length and sequence of the peptide [143] . In 2003, Gaubin et al. demonstrated that FITC-labeled fd virions can be internalized in human EBV-B cell lines and the fd virions are successively degraded and targeted both to MHC class I and class II antigen-processing pathways [144] . This was confirmed after endocellular localization of the labeled virions with confocal microscopy. This experiment showed that the inoviruses could be internalized in APCs even without carrying a CTL epitope, but in very low rate. For in vivo experiments however, it is possible that the requirement of a CTL epitope is critical for the induction of a cellular response [144] . In 2011, Sartorius et al. showed that a hybrid fd virion with the anti-DEC-205 scFv antibody fragment fused on gp3 and the OVA257-264 antigenic epitope fused on gp8 can be internalized in human dendritic cells through a specific interaction between the anti-DEC205 scFv and the DEC-205 receptor [145] . In addition, inoculation of mice with the hybrid virions induced a specific cellular response against the OVA257-264 epitope [145] . This important characteristic of inoviral vectors to induce a cellular response was reported in only two studies aimed at developing a HIV-1 inoviral vaccine, possibly due to the complexity of detecting a cellular response and also because it is a labor intensive and time-consuming process. In 2001, Chen et al. attempted to detect a cellular response, but such a response was not induced in that experiment [53] . A more recent research study related to HIV-1, which clearly demonstrates the ability of inoviruses to induce strong cellular response, was performed in 2009 by Pedroza-Roldan et al. [60] . In this effort, an immunodominant CTL epitope of the V3 loop of gp120 (residues 311-320) was expressed as fusion to gp8 of an M13 inovirus. A random peptide library was created by inserting mutations in certain positions of this epitope. A cocktail of inoviruses carrying the V3 loop epitope or variations of this epitope were used for the vaccination of mice and, as a result, a CTL response was induced. The most important result of this study was that the immunization induced long-lasting memory T-cell responses, which were detected seven months after a single immunization [60] . The same vaccination also induced a strong humoral response, since the sera of vaccinated mice could neutralize five out of ten pseudoviruses from a panel [61] . All the above experiments clearly show that the inoviruses are capable of inducing a specific cellular immune response: the ability of the inoviral vectors to induce both arms of adaptive immunity is unique and it could prove to be valuable in the development of a successful HIV-1 vaccine.
In the general field of HIV-1 vaccine design, all studies for the production of anti-HIV-1 broadly neutralizing antibodies through vaccination with either soluble peptides or viral vectors have been unsuccessful. For this reason, some efforts have been directed to the induction of cellular immune response [146, 147] . In recent years, in HIV-1 vaccine phase I and phase II clinical trials, adenoviral vectors have been used in order induce a cellular immune response in HIV-1 vaccinated individuals [148] [149] [150] [151] . However, there are concerns about the safety of these viruses. In 2007, the large-scale phase IIB Merck trial was abruptly terminated because there was evidence that the individuals vaccinated with adenovirus rAd5 vector (expressing gag, pol and nef) became more vulnerable to HIV-1 infection in comparison to controls. It was suggested that the group with the increased risk of being infected with HIV-1 consisted of individuals who were Ad5 seropositive [152] . Other eukaryotic viruses that infect other species and do not replicate in human cells were also tested as candidates HIV vaccine carriers and in theory are safer. For example, the canarypox vector was used in the RV144 phase III clinical trial, the only clinical trial that had positive results to date, offering partial protection (31%) to vaccinated individuals in comparison with control [152, 153] . Apart from safety reasons, the use of adenovirus-based vectors has not been protective. The recent HVTV 505 phase IIB trial that used adenovirus rAd5 as a boost and DNA as prime for vaccination of 2504 human volunteers was abandoned as futile [150] . Recently, a rhesus macaque cytomegalovirus (RhCMV) vector successfully induced a persisting CTL response in rhesus macaques that strongly protected the vaccinated animals from challenge against the pathogenic SIVmac239 strain. Importantly, this study, 50% of the vaccinated animals reduced the viral load to undetectable levels [141, 142] . However, the design of a human version of this CMV vector could impose safety risks, since the human CMV is a persistent and pathogenic human virus [146] . Therefore, various types of eukaryotic viral vectors are currently under investigation. These are reviewed elsewhere [154, 155] . However, the use of a eukaryotic virus is accompanied by serious safety concerns. As an alternative, the use of prokaryotic viruses such as inoviruses, may be utilized which have a decisively lower safety risk to humans. Even if inoviruses could infect a eukaryotic cell, the assembly of the new prokaryotic virions cannot take place without the specific conditions that exist in the inter-membrane area of the E. coli and without the presence of the specific E. coli enzyme leader peptidase that does not exist in human cells [156, 157] . Furthermore, there was a phase I case study in 2006 where fd inoviruses were intravenously infused in humans (for purposes unrelated to vaccination), causing no side effects or even allergic reactions in any of the eight volunteers. To our knowledge, this is the only case where inoviruses were infused in humans [158] . Therefore, in contrast to other viral vectors, the use of inoviruses does not impose a major safety risk to humans. This characteristic of inoviral vectors along with their capability to trigger both cellular and humoral immune responses makes them an attractive option as vaccine vectors.
During the last two decades, inoviral vectors have been used in the development of vaccines against various infectious parasites and against non-infectious diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's with promising results. While the applications of inovirus display technology in vaccine design against non-HIV-1 diseases have been mostly successful, the design of a HIV-1 vaccine development has so far been disappointing. A major obstacle has been the use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies plagued with autoreactivity properties. Screening of RPLs with these antibodies resulted in the isolation of peptides that, as vaccine antigens, were unsuccessful in inducing a specific humoral response that would produce neutralizing antibodies. The recent isolation of antibodies such as VRC01 and 10E8 with more neutralizing breadth and potency without autoreactivity properties than the previously utilized antibodies may overcome this obstacle [115, 124] . Particularly, the induction of VRC01-like and 10E8-like antibodies could be a feasible target, since these antibodies also seem to be produced from a significant percentage of the HIV-1-infected population [115, 126, 127] . While humoral responses have been well documented, cellular responses have not been assessed in most studies for the design of a HIV-1 vaccine using inoviruses. The only study in which a cellular anti-HIV-1 response was detected also reported a successful induction of a long-lasting memory CTL response seven months after a single vaccination in mice with inoviral particles [60] , demonstrating that the induction of cellular immunity against HIV-1 using inoviruses is feasible. IAVs are advantageous in that they can induce both arms of adaptive immunity. This finding could therefore be of importance in future efforts for the design of a HIV-1 vaccine.
Moreover, IAVs have unique characteristics compared to other viral vectors: they are stable, they can display a peptide in multiple (from few to thousands) copies on their surface and such constructs are very immunogenic without the use of an adjuvant. In addition, IAVs allow the immune system to focus on a specific epitope of interest instead of the whole protein, which is of great importance, since an important aspect for successful HIV-1 vaccine design is to focus on the induction of neutralizing antibodies against the specific neutralizing epitopes while at the same time avoiding the induction of ineffective antibodies against the numerous non-neutralizing epitopes of the HIV-1 glycoproteins, which act as decoys for the immune system. Ideally, an effective HIV-1 vaccine should be able to stimulate both humoral and cellular immune responses. Recently, adenoviral vectors were tested in clinical trials as HIV-1 vaccine carriers in order to induce cellular immunity, but they were shown to impose serious health risks for humans. On the other hand, IAVs are able to induce cellular immunity and at the same time they have been demonstrated to be safe for administration in animals and humans. These characteristics of IAVs, conferred by their structural and biological properties, make them effective antigen display vectors that can induce strong and specific humoral and cellular immune responses against the displayed antigen. These properties of IAVs along with newly discovered broadly neutralizing anti-HIV-1 antibodies, pave the way for the development of an effective HIV-1 vaccine. | How can random peptide libraries be used in applications? | 326 | the identification of peptide ligands by receptors, the mapping of substrate sites for enzymes, and the creation of antibody peptide libraries | 15,729 |
1,665 | 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. | Which Lactobacililus casei strain does not have the cholera toxin subunit A1 (CTA1) on the surface? | 5,182 | pgsA-sM2/L. casei | 826 |
1,665 | 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? | 5,183 | Vaccination | 1,892 |
1,665 | 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? | 5,184 | 75% | 2,609 |
1,665 | 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? | 5,185 | highly conserved among influenza A virus strains | 2,838 |
1,665 | 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? | 5,186 | low immunogenicity | 3,384 |
1,665 | 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? | 5,187 | considered safe and exhibits an adjuvant-like effect on mucosal and systemic immunity | 5,108 |
1,665 | 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? | 5,188 | 59-GGGGTACCTCATTATTAACA-39, and 59-ACGTCGACT-CATTATTCAAGTTCAATAATG AC-39 | 10,971 |
1,665 | 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? | 5,189 | the incorporation of an adjuvant | 36,894 |
1,665 | 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. | 5,190 | liposomes, nanoparticles, and immunostimulating complexes (ISCOMs) | 37,056 |
1,665 | 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? | 5,191 | severe pneumonitis | 38,975 |
1,665 | 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? | 5,192 | recombinant L. casei expressing CTA1-sM2 induced long-lasting immunity and conferred protection against lethal infections by influenza | 44,663 |
1,684 | 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? | 887 | tumor necrosis factor-α | 511 |
1,684 | 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? | 888 | cytokines | 491 |
1,684 | 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? | 889 | MAPK phosphatase-1 | 861 |
1,684 | 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? | 890 | Mycobacterium tuberculosis | 1,889 |
1,684 | 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? | 891 | one third of the world's population | 1,940 |
1,684 | 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? | 892 | 9.2 million | 2,089 |
1,684 | 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? | 893 | extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), p38 MAPK, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) | 2,639 |
1,684 | 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? | 894 | phosphorylation | 3,416 |
1,684 | 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? | 895 | tyrosine phosphatases, serine/threonine phosphatases, and dual-specificity phosphatases (DUSPs) | 3,672 |
1,684 | 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? | 896 | at least 10 | 3,858 |
1,684 | 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? | 897 | a cell wall component of Gram-negative bacteria | 4,089 |
1,684 | 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? | 898 | Gram positive bacteria | 5,150 |
1,684 | 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? | 899 | MAPK | 7,415 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,241 | Constant evolution of circulating influenza virus strains and the emergence of new strains | 415 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,242 | efficacious vaccines conferring cross-clade protection to avoid the need for biannual reformulation of seasonal influenza vaccines. | 652 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,243 | Recombinant virus-vectored vaccines | 784 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,244 | a vectored vaccine often enables delivery of the vaccine to sites of inductive immunity such as the respiratory tract | 1,082 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,245 | 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. | 890 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,246 | low efficacy in the populations at greatest risk of complications from influenza virus infection, i.e., the young and elderly | 1,987 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,247 | trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; in trivalent and quadrivalent forms) | 2,685 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,248 | whole virus inactivated, split virus inactivated, and subunit vaccines. | 2,912 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,254 | the virus is disrupted by a detergent | 3,009 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,257 | intramuscularly | 3,164 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,259 | three or four inactivated viruses, i.e., two type A strains (H1 and H3) and one or two type B strains. | 3,192 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,261 | humoral responses to the hemagglutinin (HA) protein, | 3,337 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,264 | hemagglutinin (HA) protein, | 3,362 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,472 | by the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay, | 3,493 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,473 | strain-specific HI titer | 3,549 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,474 | a four-fold increase in titer post-vaccination, or a HI titer of ≥1:40 is considered protective | 3,646 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,475 | serum antibodies | 3,812 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,476 | mucosal IgA antibodies also may contribute to resistance against infection | 3,839 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,477 | nasal spray | 4,255 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,478 | the same three or four influenza virus strains as inactivated vaccines but on an attenuated vaccine backbone | 4,280 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,480 | they do not replicate effectively at core body temperature | 4,446 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,481 | LAIV are temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted | 4,395 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,482 | replicate in the mucosa of the nasopharynx | 4,510 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,483 | LAIV immunization induces serum antibody responses, mucosal antibody responses (IgA), and T cell responses. | 4,560 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,484 | specific antibody responses to the HA, and to a lesser extent NA proteins for protection. | 5,071 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,485 | The immunodominant portions of the HA and NA molecules undergo a constant process of antigenic drift, a natural accumulation of mutations | 5,161 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,486 | in February | 5,646 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,487 | it is generally considered to be as effective as inactivated vaccines and may be more efficacious in children | 5,998 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,488 | antigenic match | 6,142 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,489 | the HA and NA antigens are replaced on the same schedule as the TIV | 6,161 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,490 | 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 | 6,313 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,491 | improved understanding of immunity to conserved influenza virus antigens | 6,642 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,492 | allow ready manipulation and modification of the vector genome | 7,008 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,493 | enables modification of the vectors to attenuate the virus or enhance immunogenicity | 7,085 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,494 | adding and manipulating the influenza virus antigens | 7,186 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,495 | is either replication-defective or causes a self-limiting infection | 7,389 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,496 | like LAIV, safety in immunocompromised individuals | 7,466 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,497 | 53 | 7,678 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,498 | A live adenovirus vaccine containing serotypes 4 and 7 has been in use by the military for decades | 7,758 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,501 | Adenovirus 5 (Ad5) | 8,062 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,503 | having been tested for gene delivery and anti-cancer agents, as well as for infectious disease vaccines | 8,111 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,505 | 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 | 8,278 |
1,719 | 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 ? | 1,506 | 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 | 8,447 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,507 | 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 | 8,612 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,508 | the virus can be purified by simple methods | 8,759 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,509 | 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. | 8,809 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,512 | induce robust mucosal immune responses and may bypass preexisting vector immunity | 9,070 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,516 | immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) expressing the HA of a swine influenza virus, A/Swine/Iowa/1999 (H3N2) | 9,465 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,524 | A rAd5-HA expressing the HA from A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1; PR8) was delivered to humans epicutaneously or intranasally | 9,876 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,526 | The vaccine was well tolerated and induced seroconversion with the intranasal administration had a higher conversion rate and higher geometric meant HI titers | 10,040 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,530 | clinical trials with rAd vectors have overall been successful, demonstrating safety and some level of efficacy, | 10,212 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,531 | a gene therapy examination where high-dose intravenous delivery of an Ad vector resulted in the death of an 18-year-old male | 10,425 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,535 | 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 | 10,868 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,540 | potent cellular and humoral immune responses that are initiated through toll-like receptor-dependent and independent pathways which induce robust pro-inflammatory cytokine responses | 11,409 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,543 | to improve immunogenicity and broaden breadth of both humoral and cellular immunity | 12,176 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,544 | 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 | 12,281 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,579 | using Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus (AcNPV) expressing the HA of PR8 under control of the CAG promoter (AcCAG-HA) | 20,353 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,549 | preexisting immunity, | 12,531 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,550 | adenovirus serotypes have been explored as vectors, particularly non-human and uncommon human serotypes | 12,568 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,551 | Swine, NHP and bovine adenoviruses expressing H5 HA antigens | 12,932 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,553 | Low prevalence serotypes such as adenovirus types 3, 7, 11, and 35 | 13,193 |
1,719 | 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? | 1,557 | Prime-boost strategies, using DNA or protein immunization in conjunction with an adenovirus vaccine booster immunization | 13,372 |
1,719 | 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 AAV vector? | 1,559 | Like rAd vectors, rAAV have broad tropism infecting a variety of hosts, tissues, and proliferating and non-proliferating cell types | 13,644 |
1,719 | 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 AAV vector? | 1,560 | The wild type viruses are non-pathogenic and replication incompetent in humans and the recombinant AAV vector systems are even further attenuated | 14,200 |
1,719 | 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 AAV vector? | 1,561 | 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. | 14,354 |
1,719 | 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 AAV vector? | 1,562 | While there is limited preexisting immunity, availability of non-human strains as vaccine candidates eliminates these concerns. | 14,500 |
Subsets and Splits