Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
Application of Prime-Boost as a Novel Vaccination Strategy Against
Microbial Pathogens
De Gaspari
-EN. Department of Immunology, Av Dr Arnaldo 355-11 andar, São Paulo /São Paulo, Brazil
The main public health strategy for reducing infection is vaccination. However, because immune responses can differ, due
to the age-related and genetic characteristics of the individual, among other factors, novel strategies have been explored in
the last decade to augment the immune response after immunisation. These studies have included increasing the dose in
vaccines that require more than one dose, using new adjuvants and making the immunisation process more efficient. This
review aims to discuss recent advances in prime-boost immunisation strategies with particular emphasis on the
immunogenicities of different antigen preparations, combined antigens, adjuvants, security, simplicity and ease of use,
including an evaluation comparing prime-boost to other routes that are used in vaccines. Substantial experience has been
accumulated with different Neisseria species, such as Neisseria lactamica, Neisseria meningitidis and other pathogens.
Currently, the prime-boost strategy has been investigated in situations where both priming and boosting immunisations
were administered systemically. Moreover, measurements of efficacy have been focused on components of systemic
immunity. Because for many pathogens the portal of entry is via mucosal surfaces, and while immunity at such sites can
limit or even preclude infection, immunity is also important to evaluate prime-boost strategies for their effects on mucosal
defence. Several experiments have shown that these strategies are safe and immunogenic and can offer significant
advantages in terms of higher acceptability and higher immunogenicity at different ages compared to intramuscularly
administered vaccines.
Keywords: prime/boost, microbial pathogen
Effective vaccines should generate protective immunity by producing antibodies and by establishing a durable T cellmediated response [1]. In this theoretical context, an ideal vaccine is relatively easy to define; however, many vaccines
are deficient and do not approach the ideal. Additionally, for many organisms, no vaccines exist. Producing a vaccine is
a realistic strategy for obtaining protection but is not predictable. Many difficulties can delay successfully obtaining a
vaccine. Among these hindrances, microorganisms possess evasion mechanisms that interfere with effective immune
response. Further, for many organisms, it is unclear what immune responses provide effective protection [2]. However,
recent advances in methods utilized to study the immune response to pathogens have provided a better understanding of
immune mechanisms, including immunological memory [2,3]. In particular, the initiation of the immune response is
important. Considering these aspects, the development of new adjuvants, vectors and new vaccine formulations allows
the stimulation of protective immunity and should be considered when introducing vaccines for organisms resistant to
treatments [4].
Thinking in a positive context, it is easy to define the properties of an ideal vaccine. Most of these properties are
obvious, but many vaccines are far from ideal, and approaches used to produce routinely administered vaccines should
be considered [5]. Protective immunity must be broadly protective against all variants that convey how to prevent a
disease. Further, immunity is not effective in all vaccinated individuals, including children and the elderly. The ideal
vaccine should be able to transmit maternal protection and may not necessarily need to be administered by injection;
the vaccine should be cheap, stable (no requirement for a “cold chain”) and covered by insurance [6].
Recent research employing the sciences of biology, immunology, engineering, bioinformatics, genetics, and
advanced technology will change in terms of our ability to direct science toward solving the problems of significant
infectious diseases and immunological puzzles that slow or prevent vaccine development against threats such as many
infectious diseases. One of the areas of current study that is extremely attractive is the inverse approach to the
development of vaccines (i.e., reverse vaccinology), which uses the genome sequence of the pathogen [7]. The genome
sequence provides a comprehensive catalogue of almost all of the antigens that the pathogen can express at any time.
This approach starts from the genomic sequence; computer analysis can make an estimate of the antigens that are likely
candidates for use. This approach could, therefore, open perspectives for identifying the antigens that can be inserted
into potential vaccine candidates and that could provide protective immunity without knowing the amount of antigen,
the immunogenicity during infection or the expression levels in vitro. This not only allows the identification of all of
the antigens seen by conventional methods but also facilitates the discovery of antigens while working in a completely
different direction [8]. However, even with all this technology, both immunisation schedules and new adjuvants should
be taken into consideration [9].
Immunisation programs provide a vast amount of immunisation. The provision of programs and the vast amount of
vaccines remain effective public health strategies for preventing disease [10]. While these strategies remain in place,
however, there is still a need for new effective vaccination strategies for various pathogens [11,12].
422
©FORMATEX 2011
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
_______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
The immune system recognises antigens present in vaccine preparations as foreign agents and processes them as
such. When an individual is infected by the same agent, it quickly responds with a rapid and effective response ,
neutralising the agent before it enters into cells. The host also has a strategy to recognise and destroy infected cells
before that agent can multiply to large numbers [13].
A vaccine is an antigenic preparation that enhances immunity to the disease(s) that it targets [14]. Vaccines normally
contain antigenic components that resemble disease-causing microorganisms; they are often made from killed or
attenuated organisms or their toxins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognise the agent as foreign,
then to process and "remember" it such that the immune system can more easily recognise and destroy any of these
microorganisms upon subsequent contact.
Vaccines can be prophylactic (e.g., to prevent or mitigate the effects of future infection) or therapeutic (e.g., vaccines
against cancer are also being investigated).
Vaccination schedule
In a vaccination schedule, for most vaccines, including the appropriate time range is important to take into account the
number of doses that are either recommended or mandatory depending on the “location where the vaccine will be
administered”.
Vaccines are antigenic preparations used to produce active immunity against diseases to prevent or reduce the effects
of infection [15]. Many vaccines require multiple doses for maximum effectiveness in producing an efficient immune
response. For example, it is often recommended that the tetanus vaccine be re-administered every 10 years [11]. These
processes are developed by government agencies based on studies to achieve maximum effectiveness. In the last two
decades, the recommended vaccination schedule has grown rapidly and has become more complicated, as many
vaccines have been developed recently [11].
Delivery systems
There is a considerable amount of current research regarding vaccine development and the ways to administer a
vaccine. Current methods include the use of liposomes and ISCOM (immune stimulating complex) [16,17].
The recent development of new technologies for the administration of vaccines has resulted in the production of oral
vaccines. The polio vaccine serves as a successful example: it was developed and tested on volunteers with no formal
training, and the results were notably positive. With an oral vaccine, there is no risk of blood contamination. Oral
vaccines are considered more stable and less prone to freezing damage, and this stability reduces the need for a "cold
chain" (e.g., the resources needed to maintain the vaccines within a narrow temperature range from initial manufacture
to the point of administration), which, in turn, lowers the cost of vaccines. Finally, a microneedle approach, which is
still in the developmental stages, seems to be the vaccine of the future [18,19].
A number of innovative vaccines are also under development and in current use, such as using dendritic cell
vaccines, which combine antigens with dendritic cells to present antigens to host white blood cells, stimulating an
immune response. These vaccines have shown positive preliminary results for the treatment of brain tumours [20].
The use of new recombinant vectors, which combine the physiology of the genetic information of one organism with
that of another, allows immunity to be created against diseases that have complex processes of infection [21].
Sequencing to identify bacterial proteins that are involved in complement inhibition would neutralise the key
mechanism of bacterial virulence [22].
While most vaccines are created using inactivated or attenuated compounds from micro-organisms, synthetic
vaccines are composed mainly or entirely of synthetic peptides, carbohydrates or antigens [23].
Developing immunity
For many vaccines, several immunisations are required to induce protection. Depending on the age of the vaccinee, up
to five immunisations are required for vaccines, such as diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine (DTP), which is
administered three times during the first six months after birth followed by a fourth dose in the second year of life and a
booster dose when the child is between four and six years old. Still, certain patients require additional doses of vaccine,
even adults who have received full immunisation, such as tetanus-diphtheria (Td) for which a booster is recommended
every 10 years throughout the life of the individual.
Clearly, different prime-boost approaches are likely to generate distinct types of immunity, and it is essential to
ensure that only appropriate immune responses are targeted during immunisation. The factors that regulate distinct
types of immune responses are poorly understood; depending on the route of delivery, it is difficult to predict in
advance what type of immune response will be favoured. We found that four intranasal (i.n.) priming immunisations
followed by an intramuscular (i.m.) boost significantly enhanced serum Opc-specific antibody titres. Studies are
underway in our laboratory to determine the optimal number of doses and the quantity of Opc or PorB purified o
©FORMATEX 2011
423
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
N.meningitidis are required for sensitising the mucosal immune system [24,25] and for stimulating the appearance of
memory cells. We maintain that the quality of the produced antibody is another important factor to consider in choosing
an adequate antigen.
Recently, a great deal of attention has been directed toward needle-free immunisation strategies as alternative
methods for vaccine delivery. Both mucosal (i.n.,oral, and rectal) and transcutaneous immunisation in the presence of
an appropriate adjuvant have been shown to induce humoral and cellular immune responses in both the systemic and
mucosal compartments of immunised animals. Alternating routes for delivery of the priming and booster doses in
immunisations, which are known as prime-boost strategies, have also been examined. Such prime-boost strategies could
be particularly important in an imminent or post-release bioterrorism event if it is possible to administer a parenteral
priming dose and simultaneously distribute a follow-up patch, pill, or nasal applicator that could be self-administered.
Such vaccine strategies would greatly improve national preparedness [14].
An effective vaccine usually requires more than a one-time immunisation in the form of a prime-boost [11].
Traditionally, the same vaccines are given multiple times as homologous boosts. New findings have suggested that
prime-boost can be used with different types of vaccines containing the same antigens. In many cases, these
heterologous prime-boosts can be more immunogenic than homologous prime-boosts.
The heterologous prime-boost strategy represents a new method of immunisation and will stimulate a better
understanding of the immunological basis of vaccines[14].
While it is not entirely clear why some vaccines require more immunisations than others, it is well accepted that
multiple immunisations (i.e., prime-boosts) are crucial for even the most successful vaccines. This principle applies to
live-attenuated vaccines (e.g., the oral polio vaccine), inactivated vaccines (e.g., the hepatitis A vaccine), recombinant
protein subunit vaccines (e.g., the hepatitis B vaccine), and polysaccharide vaccines (e.g., the Haemophilus influenzae
type b vaccine). For these vaccines, the prime-boost is homologous because the same vaccines given in the earlier
priming immunisations are used for subsequent boost immunisations.
Prime–boost vaccines against pathogens
A 1992 landmark Science report was among the first to employ the heterologous prime–boost immunisation technique
in a non-human primate model [26]. In that study, Macaca fascicularis were first immunised with recombinant vaccinia
virus expressing SIVmne gp160 antigen and were subsequently boosted with gp160 protein produced in baculovirusinfected cells. Animals were protected from intravenous challenge with SIVmne viruses. This experiment led to one of
the most promising reports of protection in the early HIV vaccine development efforts.
In several works, that pivotal report established a key principle for the use of heterologous prime–boost
immunisations: that is, to elicit both humoral and cell-mediated immune responses [12] . Modern immunology has
established that such a balanced immune response is important for protection against several types of pathogens.
Traditional vaccines, particularly inactivated and subunit vaccines, are not notably effective in eliciting T cell
responses.
Over the past several years, the use of heterologous prime–boost approaches in vaccine research has gained
significant momentum against a wide range of pathogens. Several features have become apparent in this trend.
For tuberculosis vaccine development, qualitatively and quantitatively different cellular immune responses have been
elicited in rhesus macaques receiving a recombinant Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) prime followed by an adenovirus
type 35 vector boost that expressed a fusion protein composed of Ag85A, Ag85B, and TB104 [27]. Alternatively, BCG
can be used as a boost following priming with a DNA vaccine. In one study conducted in calves, a DNA prime with
Ag85B, MPT64, and MPT83 antigens followed by a BCG boost was able to elicit higher immune responses and better
protection than BCG alone against Mycobacterium bovis challenge [28].
Second, a well-designed heterologous prime–boost approach can expand the scope of immune responses. When mice
were primed with a DNA vaccine expressing ESAT6 and later received the same antigen in the form of recombinant
protein as a boost, the production of Th1-type cytokines increased significantly, as did the IgG2 to IgG1 ratio [29]. In
another murine study, a prime with a DNA vaccine expressing the gD antigen of herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2),
which preferentially induces Th1-type cellular immune responses, and a boost with recombinant gD protein, which
mainly induces Th2-biased responses, led to significantly enhanced antibody levels, T cell proliferation, and Th1
cytokine production [30].
Third, the prime–boost vaccine approach can also improve the effectiveness of existing vaccines. One example is the
use of DNA prime, which increased antibody response levels in animals that later received boosts with inactivated
rabies vaccines [31]. Similarly, DNA prime increased the titres and longevity of hyperimmune sera in animals that were
immunised with the recombinant PA antigen against anthrax [32]. By adding a DNA prime, mice boosted with the
licensed hepatitis B surface protein vaccine were able to produce stronger and more homogeneous antibody responses
in a study group compared to groups only receiving recombinant protein alone. Higher IL-12 and IFN-γ secretions in
splenocytes were also observed [32].
424
©FORMATEX 2011
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
_______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
Mechanisms of heterologous prime–boost vaccines
A fundamental but still mysterious question is why the heterologous prime–boost is more effective than homologous
prime–boost, even when the same vaccine components are used for each. One way to study this question is to determine
the importance of the order of administration of heterologous prime–boost vaccines. Using a Mycobacterium bovis
model, it was demonstrated that the order of prime–boost vaccination of neonatal calves with BCG and DNA vaccine,
encoding Hsp65, Hsp70, and Apa, was not crucial for enhancing protection against bovine tuberculosis [33].
The immunogenicity of heterologous prime–boost can be further improved by including other factors that may
further facilitate or enhance the effects of vaccines. For example, including plasmid cytokines and colony-stimulating
factors could enhance the immunogenicity of DNA-primed viral vector-boosted HIV-1 vaccines [34]. The potency of
the DNA vaccine prime can be enhanced by using a microparticle-based formulation followed by a protein boost [35].
However, it is not clear whether using different adjuvants for a protein vaccine boost will make any difference.
Heterologous prime–boost vaccination using both traditional and novel immunisation approaches provides exciting
opportunities to elicit unique immune responses to allow for improved immunogenicity and/or protection. Research has
shown that the heterologous prime–boost can take various forms and that the order of prime–boost administration may
be important, although this finding may be antigen-dependent and may be influenced by the host species and the type(s)
of immune responses to be achieved. Future studies will need to focus more on the mechanisms behind the heterologous
prime–boost vaccination approach and solve practical issues related to a two-component vaccine, including of vaccines
costs and any currently unidentified safety issues.
Prime-boost and Neisseria
Most vaccines are delivered parenterally by means of injections, which is the traditional method for presenting an
accurate amount of antigen to the immune system. However, the majority of infectious diseases are caused by
pathogens entering the body via mucosal surfaces, which have an immune system designed to initiate local and
systemic immune responses.
Outer membrane proteins can induce a functional immune response against serogroup B Neisseria meningitidis.
However, none of the vaccines that have been developed to date can induce universal protection, due to the great
heterogeneity of the surface proteins of the outer membrane. The modest cross-reactive immunity induced by the OMV
vaccines has fuelled the search for an outer membrane antigen (or group of antigens) that induces functional antibodies
and is present in all meningococcal strains. Such antigens, were they present on all strains irrespective of the serogroup,
might form the basis for a truly universal meningococcal vaccine, which would eliminate the potential problem of
capsular switching on pathogenic strains following polysaccharide vaccination [38], [39], [40] , [41].
In the hexavalent meningococcal B OMV vaccine (HexaMen), two of the six Porin A (PorA) proteins present in the
vaccine are weakly immunogenic in mice and humans. Therefore, the researchers used a prime-boost strategy in which
they observed an increase in antibody avidity, indicating that affinity maturation had occurred. The study showed that
specific priming, rather than specific boosting with monovalent OMVs, yielded a significant rise in the serosubtypespecific immune response against a weakly immunogenic PorA with high-avidity antibodies in an extended
immunisation schedule [42].
In our study, [43] we demonstrated that the i.n. immunisation of neonatal mice in a prime-boost model with N.
lactamica NOMVs could be valuable in the design of vaccines for the prevention of meningitis. As we know,
understanding the basis for this observation could lead to the identification of those N. lactamica antigens that mediate
cross-reactive protective immunity and the development of natural immunity.
It has been shown that whole killed meningococci and pertussis bacteria possess mucosal adjuvanticity for admixed
particulate antigens, which are weakly immunogenic by the nasal route [44]. Meanwhile, we have demonstrated good
immunogenicity in our studies [45].
In another study in our laboratory, we used a prime-boost strategy with purified antigens of outer membrane of
Neisseria meningitidis [25].The nasal route for vaccination offers both mucosal and systemic immunity for the
prophylaxis of respiratory diseases. To induce maximal protective mucosal immunity, using a mucosal adjuvant is
essential. Current studies are searching vaccine antigens that are derived from the outer membrane protein (OMP) of
Neisseria meningitidis. This study investigated the immunogenicity of intranasally administered class 5C protein of
Neisseria meningitidis B, employing purified LPS from immunotypes L3, 7, 9 or L8, cholera toxin and whole cells of
Bordetella pertussis as mucosal adjuvants for the development of a new meningococcal vaccine. The study showed that
the nasal delivery of class 5C protein with mucosal adjuvants has considerable potential in the development of a
mucosal vaccine against serogroup B meningococci in a prime-boost immunisation in the presence of the adjuvants
used. A monoclonal antibody against class 5C protein using popliteal lymph nodes was obtained.
We also evaluated this strategy in a rabbit model using a prime boost immunization in l [46,47]. A protocol was
proposed to study the immunogenicity of killed whole cells of N. lactamica, N. meningitidis, N. sicca or N. meningitidis
(carrier-isolated) by i.n. immunisation , considering the natural entry route of the pathogen. Adult rabbits were
inoculated i.n. with oropharynx-isolated N. lactamica, N. meningitidis, N. sicca or N. meningitidis. The rabbits
©FORMATEX 2011
425
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
developed levels of specific IgG antibodies in their sera as determined by ELISA using whole cells of homologous and
heterologous strains. Sera from rabbits immunised with N. lactamica, N. meningitidis, N. sicca or N. meningitidis c
strain showed IgG antibodies reactive to 5- to 190-kDa antigens on immunoblotting with high avidity.
In our recent study, we investigated the adjuvant properties of toxoids Stx1 and Stx2 (STEC) from Escherichia coli
and native outer membrane vesicles (NOMV) of Neisseria meningitidis B, comparing two methods of immunisation:
prime-boost or intramuscular vaccination in BALB/c mice. The prime-boost was effective; however, it performed no
better than two intramuscular doses. This study may contribute to the development of new technologies and strategies
directed against N. meningitidis B and employing toxoids as adjuvants [48]. We also investigated the use of the Stx2
toxoid from E. coli as an adjuvant for a possible future vaccine model and as an antigenic stimulant protein of the
external membrane of meningococci (OMP) carried in liposomes [ 49].
Conclusion
We must bear in mind that new technologies are assisting in the rapid development of new advances in antigen
preparations. We must use these developments to increase agility and implementation in the short, medium or long
term.
It is important to remember that genetic factors influence various aspects of the context of the immune response;
thus, polymorphisms in immune response genes can result in variation in the immune response to vaccines and
biological products. Defining these polymorphisms can provide an opportunity to determine who is at risk of a serious
result of an infectious disease, the probability of a serious adverse event of a vaccine, the number and dose of a vaccine
required to induce immunity, and even the impact of the driving development of new vaccines.
We believe that the issues discussed above represent significant factors that may impact the field of vaccinology.
Once understood and addressed, these areas become opportunities to increase immunisation rates in populations at risk,
particularly in the elderly, to reduce the cost of health care in a setting of a population structure consisting of more older
individuals, and to improve public health. Each of these issues is critical for understanding the economic, social and
scientific drives for vaccine development and use within the population. These issues present themselves as a puzzle in
the process of recognising the threat of infectious diseases, vaccine development, and public use of vaccines. Despite
the best available technology and the development of better vaccines, such vaccines are useless if not used and trusted
by health professionals and by the public. These concepts discussed above ould improve the safety of vaccines,
allowing screening for susceptibility to adverse events and improving confidence in vaccines and public health strategy.
In “sun”, we believe that the future is both bright and promising for vaccinology as a new science and as technological
advances continue, particularly in genetics and immunology. If successful, human health is likely to benefit
substantially.
Acknowledgements This study was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico, Tecnológico (MCT/CNPq),
Brazil , Fundação de Amparo á Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (Fapesp) and Adolfo Lutz Institute São Paulo/SP .
References
[1] Sheridan BS, Lefrançois L. Regional and mucosal memory T cells. Nat Immunol. 2011 ;12:485-91.
[2] Cooper NR. Complement evasion strategies of microorganisms. Immunol Today. 1991 ;12:327-31.
[3] Pulendran B, Ahmed R. Immunological mechanisms of vaccination. Nat Immunol. 2011 ;12:509-17.
[4] Rappuoli R. Reverse vaccinology. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2000 ;5:445-50.
[5] Murphy TV, Slade BA, Broder KR, Kretsinger K, Tiwari T, Joyce PM, et al. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices
(ACIP) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevention of pertussis, tetanus, and diphtheria among pregnant and
postpartum women and their infants recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).MMWR
Recomm Rep. 2008;30:1-51.
[6] Plotkin SA. Vaccines: past, present and future. Nat Med. 2005 ;11:S5-11.
[7] Sette A, Rappuoli R. Reverse vaccinology: developing vaccines in the era of genomics. Immunity. 2010;33:530-41.
[8] Janulczyk R, Masignani V, Maione D, Tettelin H, Grandi G, Telford JL. Simple sequence repeats and genome plasticity in
Streptococcus agalactiae. J Bacteriol. 2010 ;192:3990-4000.
[9] Rouanet C, Locht C. Boosting BCG to protect against TB. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2010 ;4:339-48.
[10] Grabenstein JD, Nevin RL. Mass immunization programs: principles and standards. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2006;304:3151.
[11] Ramshaw IA, Ramsay AJ. The prime-boost strategy: exciting prospects for improved vaccination. Immunol Today.
2000;21:163-5.
[12] Nolz JC, Harty JT. Strategies and Implications for Prime-Boost Vaccination to Generate Memory CD8 T Cells. Adv Exp Med
Biol. 2012;780:69-83.
[13] Tuchscherr L, Medina E, Hussain M, Völker W, Heitmann V, Niemann S, Holzinger D, Roth J, Proctor RA, Becker K, Peters G,
Löffler B .Staphylococcus aureus phenotype switching: an effective bacterial strategy to escape host immune response and
establish a chronic infection. EMBO Mol Med. 2011 ;3:129-41.
[14] Woodland DL. Jump-starting the immune system: prime-boosting comes of age. Trends Immunol 2004; 25 : 98–104.
426
©FORMATEX 2011
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
_______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
[15] Excler JL, Plotkin S. The prime-boost concept applied to HIV preventive vaccines. AIDS. 1997;11 :S127-37.
[16] Puras G, Salvador A, Igartua M, Hernández RM, Pedraz JL. Encapsulation of Aβ(1-15) in PLGA microparticles enhances serum
antibody response in mice immunized by subcutaneous and intranasal routes. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2011;l 27.
[17] Kim CH, Kim JS, Cha SH, Kim KN, Kim JD, Lee KY, et al . Response to Primary and Booster Vaccination With 10-Valent
Pneumococcal Nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae Protein D Conjugate Vaccine in Korean Infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2011
;3.
[18] Martin J, Milne C, Minor P, Chumakov K, Baca-Estrada M, Caruana JF, Zhou T. WHO Working Group discussion on revision
of the WHO recommendations for the production and control of poliomyelitis vaccines (oral): TRS Nos. 904 and 910. Report of
Meeting held on 20-22 July 2010, Geneva, Switzerland. Vaccine. 2011 2;:6432-6.
[19] Weldon WC, Martin MP, Zarnitsyn V, Wang B, Koutsonanos D, Skountzou I, et al. Microneedle vaccination with stabilized
recombinant influenza virus hemagglutinin induces improved protective immunity. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2011;18:647-54.
[20] Insug O, Ku G, Ertl HC, Blaszczyk-Thurin M. A dendritic cell vaccine induces protective immunity to intracranial growth of
glioma. Anticancer Res. 2002;22:613-21.
[21] Schell JB, Rose NF, Bahl K, Diller K, Buonocore L, Hunter M, Marx PA, Gambhira R, Tang H, Montefiori DC, Johnson WE,
Rose JK. Significant protection against high-dose simian immunodeficiency virus challenge conferred by a new prime-boost
vaccine regimen. J Virol. 2011;85:5764-72.
[22] Xie X, McLean MD, Hall JC. Antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity- and complement-dependent cytotoxicityindependent bactericidal activity of an IgG against Pseudomonas aeruginosa O6ad. J Immunol. 2010 ;184:3725-33.
[23] Salvador A, Igartua M, Hernández RM, Pedraz JL. An overview on the field of micro- and nanotechnologies for synthetic
Peptide-based vaccines. J Drug Deliv. 2011;181646.
[24] Carmo MAS, Ferraz AS, Ito,A.Y,Neri SV, Cunha,TN, De Gaspari E.N . Prime-Boost Immunogenicity of Class 5C Protein from
Neisseria meningitidis in Mice with Different Adjuvants. The Open Vaccine Journal 2009;. 2: 45-55.
[25] Raphael ML .Universidade de São Paulo page . Available at :
http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/87/87131/tde13012009-172350/pt-br.php .Accessed August 21,2011.
[26] Hu SL, Abrams K, Barber GN, Moran P, Zarling JM, Langlois AJ, Kuller L, Morton WR, Benveniste RE. Protection of
macaques against SIV infection by subunit vaccines of SIV envelope glycoprotein gp160. Science. 1992; 24:456-9.
[27] Magalhaes I, Sizemore DR, Ahmed RK, Mueller S, Wehlin L, Scanga C, Weichold F, Schirru G, Pau MG, Goudsmit J,
Kühlmann-Berenzon S, Spångberg M, Andersson J, Gaines H, Thorstensson R, Skeiky YA, Sadoff J, Maeurer M. rBCG
induces strong antigen-specific T cell responses in rhesus macaques in a prime-boost setting with an adenovirus 35 tuberculosis
vaccine vector. PLoS One. 2008;3:e3790
[28] Cai H, Yu DH, Hu XD, Li SX, Zhu YX. A combined DNA vaccine-prime, BCG-boost strategy results in better protection
against Mycobacterium bovis challenge. DNA Cell Biol. 2006 ;25:438-47.
[29] Wang QM, Sun SH, Hu ZL, Yin M, Xiao CJ, Zhang JC. Improved immunogenicity of a tuberculosis DNA vaccine encoding
ESAT6 by DNA priming and protein boosting. Vaccine. 2004; 9:3622-7.
.[30] Sin JI, Bagarazzi M, Pachuk C, Weiner DB. DNA priming-protein boosting enhances both antigen-specific antibody and Th1type cellular immune responses in a murine herpes simplex virus-2 gD vaccine model. DNA Cell Biol. 1999;18:771-9.
[31] Biswas S, Reddy GS, Srinivasan VA, Rangarajan PN. Preexposure efficacy of a novel combination DNA and inactivated rabies
virus vaccine. Hum Gene Ther. 2001; 10:1917-22.
[32] Herrmann JE, Wang S, Zhang C, Panchal RG, Bavari S, Lyons CR, et al. .Passive immunotherapy of Bacillus anthracis
pulmonary infection in mice with antisera produced by DNA immunization. Vaccine. 2006 26;:5872-80.
[33] Skinner MA, Wedlock DN, de Lisle GW, Cooke MM, Tascon RE, Ferraz JC,et al .The order of prime-boost vaccination of
neonatal calves with Mycobacterium bovis BCG and a DNA vaccine encoding mycobacterial proteins Hsp65, Hsp70, and Apa
is not critical for enhancing protection against bovine tuberculosis. Infect Immun. 2005 ;73:4441-4.
[34] Barouch DH, McKay PF, Sumida SM, Santra S, Jackson SS, Gorgone DA,et al. Plasmid chemokines and colony-stimulating
factors enhance the immunogenicity of DNA priming-viral vector boosting human immunodeficiency virus type 1 vaccines. J
Virol. 2003 16:8729-35.
[35] Otten GR, Schaefer M, Doe B, Liu H, Srivastava I, Megede J,et al. Enhanced potency of plasmid DNA microparticle human
immunodeficiency virus vaccines in rhesus macaques by using a priming-boosting regimen with recombinant proteins. J Virol.
2005;79:8189-200.
[36] Bai X, Findlow J, Borrow R. Recombinant protein meningococcal serogroup B vaccine combined with outer membrane
vesicles. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2011;11:969-85.
[37] van der Ley P, van den Dobbelsteen G. Next-generation outer membrane vesicle vaccines against Neisseria meningitidis based
on nontoxic LPS mutants. Hum Vaccin. 2011 ; 1.
[38] Giuliani MM, Adu-Bobie J, Comanducci M, Aricò B, Savino S, Santini L,et al. A universal vaccine for serogroup B
meningococcus .Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 ; 18 ;10834-9.
[39] Finney M, Vaughan T, Taylor S, Hudson MJ, Pratt C, Wheeler JX, et al Characterization of the key antigenic components and
pre-clinical immune responses to a meningococcal disease vaccine based on Neisseria lactamica outer membrane vesicles. Hum
Vaccin 4 (2008), pp. 23–30.
[40] Holst J. Strategies for development of universal vaccines against meningococcal serogroup B disease: the most promising
options and the challenges evaluating them. Hum Vaccin. 2007; 3:290-4
[41] Harrison LH. Prospects for vaccine prevention of meningococcal infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006 ;19:142-64.
[42] Luijkx T, van Dijken H, van Els C, van den Dobbelsteen G. Heterologous prime-boost strategy to overcome weak
immunogenicity of two serosubtypes in hexavalent Neisseria meningitidis outer membrane vesicle vaccine. Vaccine. 2006;
6;1569-77.
[43] Ito AY, Néri S, Machado MS, Tunes CF, De Gaspari EN. Homologous prime-boost strategy in neonate mice using Neisseria
lactamica. Vaccine. 2009 26:3422-8.
©FORMATEX 2011
427
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
[44] Hale C, Humphreys IR, Hussell T, Bowe F, Clare S, Pickard D, et al . Mucosal immunisation of murine neonates using whole
cell and acellular Pertussis vaccines. Vaccine. 2004 9;22:3595-602.
[45] dos Santos,M.V .Universidade de São Paulo page . Available at: http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/87/87131/tde13012009-155309/fr.php. Accessed August,21,2011.
[46] Tunes , C F. Universidade de São Paulo page . Available at:
http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/87/87131/tde-20022008-214936/fr.php.
Accessed August,21,2011.
[47] Tunes, C F, Ferraz ,AS ; Scola,MCG, De Gaspari EN . Intranasal Delivery of Whole Cells of Neisseria Species: Study of Cross
- Reactive Antigens in Rabbits. The Open Vaccine Journal; 1: 13-21, 2008.
[48] Ferreira ,T. Universidade de São Paulo page . Available at:.
http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/87/87131/tde-30042010095023/fr.php.Accessed August,21,2011.
[49] Cunha,NT. Universidade de São Paulo page Available at:. http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/87/87131/tde-17042009180710/fr.php. . Accessed August,21,2011.
428
©FORMATEX 2011