Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Virology, February 2006, p. 1414-1426, Vol. 80, No. 3
0022-538X/06/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/JVI.80.3.1414-1426.2006
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Vaccine Research Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland,1 GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium2
Received 1 August 2005/ Accepted 26 August 2005
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
We previously reported that gp140 (/GCN4) trimeric immunogens could elicit improved, although limited, breadth of neutralization against HIV-1 isolates compared to monomeric gp120 immunogens (22, 61). In this study, we sought to confirm and extend these observations in another animal model and to examine if adjuvant could further enhance the neutralizing response. Thus, we compared YU2-based gp120 and gp140 immunogens emulsified in the commercially available Ribi adjuvant or in one of several newer adjuvants that have undergone extensive optimization with more modern technologies to improve their efficacy.
Adjuvants function in at least two distinct ways. In a relatively nonspecific manner, adjuvants increase the in vivo half-life of the immunogen by a "depot effect" that increases the persistence of the immunogen at the site of inoculation. Many oil-in-water or water-in-oil adjuvants accomplish depot, or deposition, through the formulation of an immunogen-containing emulsion that slowly releases the protein immunogen to interact with the host immune system. Adsorption of the protein to alum precipitates provides another means to accomplish protein deposition, and currently alum still remains the most widely used adjuvant for clinical applications.
Besides the "depot effect," many adjuvants contain other components that activate innate inflammatory and adaptive responses, including humoral responses, by targeting known or not-yet-defined "danger signal"-sensing receptors to improve immunogenicity. For example, monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL), the active component of lipopolysaccharide that interacts with Toll-like receptor 4 (17, 39), is a component of Ribi adjuvant and two of the other adjuvants tested here. In this study, we analyzed antibody responses to the trimeric immunogens compared to monomeric gp120. We also compared Ribi adjuvant to three adjuvants developed by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals (GSK, Rixensart, Belgium), called AS01B, AS02A, and AS03, to assess if the GSK adjuvants could elicit enhanced immune responses to the immunogens. These adjuvants have undergone extensive optimization to increase both humoral and cell-mediated immunity (32, 53). Ribi adjuvant contains the Toll-like receptor 4 agonist in a metabolizable oil, as well as natural and synthesized microbial components. The adjuvants from GSK are well defined and have been used in clinical trials. GSK AS01B is comprised of liposomes, QS21 and MPLTM, GSK AS02A is an oil-in-water adjuvant containing QS21 and MPLTM, and GSK AS03 is composed of oil in water.
For each of the adjuvants tested in this study, the YU2 gp140(/GCN4) immunogens elicit higher-titer neutralizing antibodies than monomeric YU2 gp120. Mapping of the antibody responses indicates that neither immunogen elicits homologous V3-directed neutralizing responses, although significant levels of V3 loop antibodies are produced. The elicited V3 loop antibodies appeared to neutralize some heterologous isolates but not all. The homologous neutralization elicited by YU2 gp120 is completely inhibited by a single peptide located in the C-terminal region of the YU2 V1 loop. However, this is not true for the limited heterologous neutralization activity elicited by YU2 gp120. The homologous neutralizing activity generated by YU2 gp140(/GCN4) trimers is much less sensitive to V1 peptide inhibition. This report identifies a novel focus of the homologous neutralizing activity elicited by monomeric gp120 and outlines a nascent strategy to dissect the complex binding and neutralizing specificities elicited by Env-based immunogens. Although we can better map the neutralizing specificities elicited by the monomeric immunogens, the trimeric immunogens elicit qualitatively different and more diverse specificities. Further mapping analysis of more conserved regions of gp120 or gp41 will be required to determine neutralizing specificity elicited by the trimeric immunogens.
|
|
|---|
Immunization protocol.
Hartlan guinea pigs (females,
7 weeks of age) were inoculated intramuscularly with 20 µg of either monomeric YU2 gp120 or trimeric YU2 gp140(/GCN4) proteins emulsified in either 0.5 ml of Ribi (Corixa, Hamilton, MT) or each of the GSK adjuvants. The protein-adjuvant emulsion was always prepared within 1 h of inoculation into the animals. Boosting inoculations occurred 6, 10, 14, and 21 weeks after the initial inoculation. To isolate serum, the blood was incubated at room temperature (RT) for 2 h to clot and centrifuged for 10 min at 2000 x g at RT to separate the liquid phase from the clotted components. The serum was collected and incubated at 55°C for 1 h to heat-inactivate complement and stored at 20°C until subjected to analysis.
Determination of antibody binding titers by ELISA.
The titers of the animal serum binding antibodies were determined by using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method. In brief, protein or synthesized peptide was adsorbed onto each well of a Maxisorp high binding plate (Nunc) in PBS, pH 7.4, overnight at 4°C. For protein ELISA, 100 ng of YU2 or
V1/2 gp120 protein expressed from stable Drosophila S2 cells and purified to near homogeneity by antibody affinity chromatography was adsorbed to each well. The anti-C1/C5 region antibody C11 was used to confirm that similar levels of each protein were applied to the wells. For peptide ELISA, 40 ng/well of overlapping V1 to V2 loop peptides or 100 ng/well of V3 peptides was coated onto the ELISA plate surface. All wells were blocked by blocking buffer containing PBS, 2% dry milk, and 5% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum. Serum was serially diluted in blocking buffer and incubated at RT for 1 h. The wells were washed five times with PBS containing 0.2% Tween-20, and a secondary anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G (IgG)-horseradish peroxidase antibody (Jackson Labs) was added to all wells in PBS-0.2% Tween 20 at a 1:10,000 dilution and incubated for 1 h at RT. After five washes with PBS-0.2% Tween 20, 100 µl of the colorometric TMB (3,3',5,5'-tetramethylbenzidine) peroxidase enzyme immunoassay substrate (Bio-Rad) was added to each well, and the reaction was stopped by adding 100 µl of 1 M H2SO4 to each well. The optical density was read on a microplate reader (Molecular Devices) at 450 nm, and the end-point titers of the serum antibodies were defined as the last reciprocal serum dilution at which the optical density signal was greater than twofold over the signal detected with the preimmune serum.
Primary HIV-1 strains. HIV-1 primary isolates, SF162, 89.6, Bx08, and the T-cell line-adapted HIV IIIB, were obtained from the National Institutes of Health AIDS Research and Reference Reagent Program. Viral stocks were prepared and titrated in phytohemagglutinin and interleukin-2-stimulated human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). The replication-competent molecular clone BR07 was provided by Dana Gabuzda of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. This virus is a chimeric infectious molecular clone of NL4-3 that contains the nearly full-length env genes from HIV-1 strain BR07 (41). After initial plasmid transfection of 293T cells, HIV-1 BR07 was expanded in PBMC as described above.
PBMC neutralization assay. As previously described (37), this assay used PBMC depleted of CD8 T cells as targets for HIV-1 infection. After CD8 depletion by magnetic beads, the cells were activated with phytohemagglutinin and interleukin-2. In most cases, the viruses tested were uncloned virus stocks derived from PBMC cultures, as described above. However, virus YU2 was a recombinant Env-pseudovirus encoding a green fluorescent protein (GFP) reporter gene (37). Virus neutralization was measured using a flow cytometric single-round infection assay that detects HIV-1-infected T cells by intracellular staining for HIV-1 p24 Gag antigen or expression of GFP (used for the YU2 pseudotyped virus). For replication-competent viruses, an HIV-1 protease inhibitor (indinavir) was used to prevent secondary rounds of virus replication. The percent neutralization was derived by calculating the reduction in the number of p24-Ag- or GFP-positive cells in the test wells with immune sera, compared to the number of HIV-1-positive cells in wells containing preimmune sera from the corresponding animal. In some cases, serum samples were screened for neutralizing activity at a single dilution. All assays included at least two positive control reagents: an immune globulin from HIV-seropositve donors and an HIV-positive serum pool. Prebleed values at the equivalent serum dilution were subtracted before calculating the percentage of postimmune serum HIV-specific neutralization to adjust for nonspecific serum effects on viral entry. To calculate the dilution of serum that neutralized 50% of infectious virus (IC50), the serum was serially diluted and the dose-response curve was fit with a nonlinear function (four parameter logistic equation) using GraphPad Prism software (San Diego, CA).
Env-pseudotyped virus neutralization and luciferase reporter cell assay.
The assay was performed as previously described (33, 37) with minor modifications as noted here. Briefly, a HeLa cell line that expresses CD4, CXCR4, and CCR5 was used as target cells for HIV-1 infection. These cells, initially called JC53-bl and now termed TZM-bl cells, were obtained from the National Institutes of Health AIDS Reference and Reagent Repository, as contributed by John Kappes and Xiaoyun Wu (10, 46, 55). The cells contain Tat-responsive reporter genes for firefly luciferase and Escherichia coli ß-galactosidase under regulatory control of an HIV-1 long terminal repeat. In our assays, the level of HIV-1 infection was quantified by measuring relative light units (RLU) of luminescence that are directly proportional to the amount of virus input. The assay was performed in a 96-well microtiter plate using the same format as the PBMC assay described above, except that 10,000 TZM-bl cells were used in place of PBMC. Approximately 48 h after virus infection, the cells were lysed, and RLU were measured using black solid OptiPlates-96F plates (PerkinElmer, Boston, MA) and a Veritas Luminometer (model 1420-061; PerkinElmer) that inject luciferase assay substrate (Promega) into each well. Pseudoviruses were prepared by cotransfecting 293T cells with an Env expression plasmid containing a full-length gp160 env gene and an env-deficient HIV-1 backbone vector (pSG3
Env). Pseudotyped virus-containing culture supernatants were harvested 2 days after transfection, filtered through 0.45-µm-pore-size filter, and stored at 80°C. For neutralization assays, each pseudotyped virus stock was diluted to a level that produced approximately 100,000 to 500,000 RLU. The cloning and construction of the full-length gp160 Env expression plasmids used to make the pseudoviruses are described in detail in a report by Li and colleagues (33). The Env pseudovirus based on the BR07 viral strain has been previously described (37, 41). Additionally, we isolated two functional Env clones from the DNA of PBMC infected with the primary isolate BaL. The Env clones BaL.01 and BaL.26 differed at 16 amino acid positions in gp160 (data not shown).
Peptide inhibition of neutralization. Peptide inhibition neutralization assays were done in the same assay format as the PBMC fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS)-based neutralization assay or the pseudotype assay, except that the control or test peptide was added to serum 30 min prior to the addition of virus. The concentration of peptide reported (usually 15 or 30 µg/ml) was that present when peptide, serum, and virus were incubated together as previously described (22). Control assays demonstrated that the peptide itself did not significantly affect virus entry. "No peptide" (defined as PBS of equivalent volume) was used as a negative control, as were several irrelevant peptides as described below. The effect of the peptide on virus neutralization was reported as the percent inhibition of neutralization. This was calculated as follows: [(percent neutralization observed with no peptide percent neutralization with test peptide)/percent neutralization with no peptide] x 100. Several peptides were used in the competition studies. The YU2 V3 peptide was a 23-mer peptide (TRPNNNTRKSINIGPGRALYTTG) and synthesized by SynPep (Dublin, Calif.) (22). As controls, a scrambled V3 peptide (IGPGRATRPNNNFYTTGTRKSIH) (22) and a corresponding HIV IIIB V3 peptide (24 mer), purchased from Sigma-Aldrich, were used. The potent anti-V3 monoclonal antibody 447-D was used as a control to confirm the ability of the V3 peptides and not the scrambled peptide to inhibit antibody-mediated neutralization as previously described (22) (see Fig S3 in the supplemental material). As additional controls, a mixture of 22 peptides (15 mers overlapping by 9 amino acids spanning the Ebola [Zaire] viral glycoprotein sequence) was used in some assays to confirm the specificity of V3 peptide inhibition. For the V1 and V2 region, 15-mer peptides overlapping by 5 residues were synthesized by New England Peptide, Inc. (Gardner, MA). These included YU2a01 (TDLRNATNTTSSSWE), YU2a02 (SSSWETMEKGEIKNC), YU2a03 (EIKNCSFNITTSIRD), YU2a04 (TSIRDKVQKEYALFY), YU2a05 (YALFYNLDVVPIDNA), YU2a06 (PIDNASYRLISCNTS), and YU2a07 (SCNTSVITQACPKVS) (see Fig. 5).
![]() View larger version (20K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 5. YU2 V1 and V2 sequence, peptides, and neutralization specificity mapping. (A) The YU2 V1 sequence is shown in regular type, and the V2 sequence is in italics. The overlapping V1 and V2 peptides used for inhibition of viral neutralization by the monomer- or trimer-elicited sera are shown beneath the variable loop sequence. (B) A representative example of peptide inhibition of neutralization assay is shown with sera from animal 46 after the fourth inoculation at a 1:5 dilution. Peptides were preincubated at selected concentrations with the sera prior to the neutralization assay as described in Materials and Methods. Peptides are specified below the horizontal axis; PBS indicates no peptide, and the scrambled V3 and V3 peptides were used as controls.
|
|
|
|---|
ELISA analysis of the antibodies in the sera elicited by gp120 and gp140(/GCN4). After the fourth inoculation, sera were collected and tested for binding activity to YU2gp120 proteins by ELISA. All groups generated high titers of anti-gp120 IgG titers, with the end-point titers ranging from 3.2 x 105 to 7.5 x 10 6 (Table 1), which is consistent with the results from our previous studies in mice or rabbits (22, 61). Although most animals generated relatively high antibody titers, the animals from group A (monomeric gp120 in Ribi adjuvant) and both groups of animals inoculated with either monomer or trimers in the AS03 adjuvant had slightly lower end-point binding titers (Table 1). Both the AS01B and AS02A adjuvants stimulated approximately fivefold higher titers of binding antibodies than Ribi adjuvant in most animals inoculated with either monomeric or trimeric glycoproteins (Table 1).
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Envelope glycoprotein and V1, V2, and V3 variable loop reactivity of the sera from immunized guinea pigsa
|
V1V2). We observed that for the 15 gp120-inoculated animals, 7 exhibited a fivefold decrease in recognition of gp120
V1V2 compared to recognition of wild-type gp120 (Table 1, animals 41, 42, 44, 45, 52, 54, and 55 of groups A, B, and C). In the group D animals (gp120 in the AS03 adjuvant), which had lower titers to gp120, there was not an observable binding decrease to gp120
V1/V2 proteins. In the animals inoculated with YU2 gp140(/GCN4) proteins, 5 out of 16 animals displayed a fivefold decrease in binding titer to the gp120
V1/V2 proteins compared to wild-type gp120 (Table 1). These data suggest that although there are significant levels of binding antibodies directed toward the V1/V2 region, it is not the single dominant antibody response elicited by either gp120 or gp140 glycoproteins (Table 1). Serum ELISA binding activity to V1, V2, and V3 peptides. As shown below, much of the neutralizing activity elicited by monomeric YU2 gp120 can be inhibited by a single YU2 V1 peptide but much less so by the YU2 V3 peptide; we sought to determine how much of the overall binding antibody repertoire was directed against these variable loop regions. By ELISA, we tested for the serum binding activity to the pool of V1/V2 peptides, to the single 15-mer V1 a02 peptide, and to the V3 peptide (Table 1 and data not shown). Most of the animal sera showed high binding end-point titers for the V1 a02 peptide, ranging from 3.13 x 105 to 1.5 x 10 6; the exceptions were that all the group A animals and animals 59 and 61 had lower binding titers to this peptide (Table 1). All the animal sera demonstrated similar binding patterns to the V1/V2 peptide pool, suggesting that most of the binding antibodies are directed toward the V1 a02 peptide. The binding titers of most of the sera to the V3 peptide were reasonably high (1.25 x 10 4 to 1.5 x 10 6) but were less than the levels obtained for binding to the V1 peptides (Table 1). Taken together, these data suggested that both YU2 gp120 and YU2 gp140(/GCN4) proteins elicited significant levels of V1- and V3-loop-directed binding antibodies.
Trimeric gp140(/GCN4) proteins elicit more potent and broader neutralization than monomeric gp120 proteins. After the fourth injection, sera were collected and assayed for neutralization activity in a titration format against the homologous YU2 virus and the relatively sensitive virus SF162 using a FACS-based PBMC neutralization assay. We selected sera from animals from groups D and H that had been inoculated with monomeric YU2 gp120 or trimeric YU2 gp140(/GCN4) proteins in the same AS03 adjuvant. Not all groups were analyzed to conserve limited sera for subsequent analyses. Sera were tested at an initial dilution of 1:10 and serial fivefold dilutions. For YU2, at the initial 1:10 serum dilution, the trimeric YU2 gp140(/GCN4) animal sera had a mean (± standard error of mean) neutralization activity of 89% ± 8.0%, while monomeric YU2 gp120 animal sera displayed an average neutralization activity of 56% ± 20% (Fig. 1A). The IC50 values for the reciprocal dilutions of the sera elicited by the gp140 glycoproteins were at least fivefold higher, ranging from 37 to 186, than the values for monomeric YU2 gp120-elicited sera, which ranged from 6 to 32. Similarly, for SF162, the sera from YU2 gp140(/GCN4) protein-injected animals (group H) displayed approximately fivefold higher IC50 values than the YU2 gp120 protein-injected animals (group D) (Fig. 1B).
![]() View larger version (16K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Titration of neutralization activity in sera after four inoculations of YU2 gp120 (group D) or gp140(/GCN4) (group H) with the GSK AS03 adjuvant. Sera were tested for neutralization of YU2 (A) and SF162 (B) at decreasing serum concentrations. The average neutralization values for each group plotted against the serum dilution factors are shown. Error bars indicate the standard errors of the means.
|
![]() View larger version (42K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. PBMC, FACS-based neutralization assay against five HIV-1 primary isolates and one T-cell-line-adapted isolate, IIIB. Shown are values from a single-round in vitro neutralization with guinea pig sera after the third and fourth inoculations at a 1:5 dilution against the indicated isolates. Numbers indicate percent neutralization, as described in Materials and Methods, and are color coded; yellow indicates 50 to 80% neutralization, and red indicates >80% neutralization.
|
301 [30]). In general, and as before, the sera derived from YU2 gp140(/GCN4) emulsified in the GSK adjuvants displayed more potent neutralizing activity than did the sera elicited by gp120 in the GSK adjuvants. The difference in neutralization between the gp140- and gp120-elicited sera was statistically significant as determined by a nonparametric Mann-Whitney test. For most viruses, the P value derived by this analysis ranges from 0.0001 to 0.056 (see Fig S1 in the supplemental material).
![]() ![]() View larger version (68K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. (A) Neutralization activity against eight pseudotyped HIV primary isolates. Shown are values from a single-round in vitro neutralization with guinea pig sera after the second and fifth inoculations at a 1:5 dilution against the indicated isolates. Numbers indicate percent neutralization, as described in Materials and Methods, and are color coded; yellow indicates 50 to 80% neutralization, and red indicates >80% neutralization. ND, not determined. (B) Titration of homologous neutralization activity in sera after four inoculations of YU2 gp120 (group D) or gp140(/GCN4) (group H) with GSK AS03. The average neutralization values plotted against the serum dilution factors are shown. Error bars indicate the standard errors of the means.
|
![]() View larger version (37K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 6. Peptide neutralization specificity mapping of selected sera against heterologous primary isolates. (A) Percent neutralization of 89.6 is shown in a bar graph format of individual sera elicited by the gp140(/GCN4) proteins at the indicated serial dilutions following preincubation with PBS or peptide in the same volume of PBS. All variable region peptide sequences were derived from YU2, as described in Materials and Methods. V1V2 pool 1 consists of peptides YU2a01 and -a03. V1V2 pool 3 consists of peptides YU2a04, -a05, -a06, and -a07. (B) Percent neutralization of JR-CSF following peptide preincubation for the trimer-elicited sera at a 1:10 dilution (left graph) and monomer-elicited sera at a 1:5 dilution with the exception that a 1:10 dilution was used for sample 54 (right graph).
|
When the mean neutralizing values elicited by the gp140 proteins in each of the four adjuvants were statistically compared by a Mann-Whitney nonparametric analysis, it was apparent that the GSK adjuvants all elicited higher neutralizing activity at the single dilution point analyzed (Fig. 4). For animals inoculated with the trimeric gp140(/GCN4) proteins, the percentage of homologous YU2 neutralization ranged from 91 to 99% in the AS01B, AS02A, and AS03 adjuvants and ranged from 0 to 68% in Ribi adjuvant group (P < 0.03) (Fig. 2 and 4A). For the lab-adapted isolate IIIB and the sensitive primary isolate SF162, the percent neutralization values ranged from 50 to 93% in the AS01B, AS02A, and AS03 adjuvants, while it was below 50% in the Ribi adjuvant (group E) (P < 0.03) (Fig. 2 and 4B and C). In summary, the GSK family of adjuvants improves the potency of the neutralizing antibody response with either the monomeric or trimeric YU2 envelope glycoprotein immunogens compared to the commercially available Ribi adjuvant.
![]() View larger version (10K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 4. Comparison of gp140-elicited neutralization of the YU2 (A), SF162 (B), and IIIB (C) viruses in the four adjuvants. The horizontal bars indicate the mean neutralization value of each adjuvant group at a 1:5 serum dilution. For each virus, the Ribi adjuvant group and the three GSK adjuvant groups together were compared by a nonparametric Mann-Whitney test.
|
For the V3 analysis, serum samples remaining in greatest abundance after the previous analysis were selected. Ten serum samples from the YU2 gp120-inoculated animals were analyzed in this experiment. As shown in Table 2, the presence of V3 peptide in the assay did not greatly inhibit the homologous YU2 neutralization activity for most of the sera (30% or less). The exception was the serum from animal 54 in the GSK AS02A adjuvant group, which showed a 47% activity decrease following incubation with the V3 peptide. However, many of the gp120-elicited sera that possessed relatively weak neutralization also displayed some minor fluctuations in neutralization activity with and without the V3 peptide. Because of the increased variability in the assay, and by inspection of the robust V1 peptide inhibition data below, we interpret the results to indicate that the homologous neutralization activity elicited by YU2 gp120 was not predominantly against the V3 loop.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 2. Neutralization of YU2 virus and V1, V2, and V3 loop peptide adsorptions of the sera elicited by YU2 gp120 and gp140(/GCN4)
|
We then attempted to examine if the specific neutralization activity was focused on the V1 or V2 loops. To develop a peptide inhibition assay for this gp120 region, we first selected two serum samples (animals 44 and 46 from group B) and preincubated each of the sera with a pool of overlapping 15-mer peptides derived from the YU2 V1 and V2 loops (Fig. 5A) (see Materials and Methods). Somewhat surprisingly, we found that the V1/V2 peptide pool inhibited most of the neutralization activity of these two serum samples. For animal 46, 100% of the neutralization activity was inhibited by the V1/V2 peptide pool (Fig. 5B and Table 2), and for animal 44, 61% of neutralization was inhibited (Table 2). These results suggested that monomeric YU2 gp120 elicits neutralizing antibodies predominantly focused on V1 and/or V2 loops. To better define the specificity, we divided the V1 and V2 peptides into three test groups, the first containing two peptides, designated V1V2 pool 1. The second group contained a single peptide V1 a02 that we designated pool 2 (we had found that a similar peptide derived from HXBc2 inhibited HXBc2 homologous neutralization; J. Mascola and G. Nabel, unpublished observations). A pool of the four most-C-terminal V1/V2 peptides was designated V1V2 pool 3 (Table 2 and Fig. 5A). We then tested the inhibition effects of these three peptide sets on 10 selected animal serum samples. We found that the single peptide V1 a02, derived from the C terminus of V1 loop, inhibited homologous neutralization of 7 of 10 serum samples at the 100% level, 2 of 10 serum samples at the 70% level, and 1 serum sample at the 40% level (Table 2 and Fig. 5B). These results strongly suggested that the neutralization activity against the homologous isolate YU2 elicited by monomeric gp120 glycoprotein was focused to a single epitope within the V1 loop. Consistent with this observation, most of the other peptides within the V1 and V2 loop did not show significant inhibition of neutralization. The one exception was that the serum from animal 48 was inhibited 35% by the V1V2 pool 1 and 47% by the V1V2 pool 3 (Table 2). However, this particular serum sample displayed diverse effects, and the data were difficult to interpret. By definition, the inhibition of neutralization should not exceed the 100% level, which was already achieved by the V1 a02 peptide itself.
To examine if the YU2 gp140(/GCN4) elicited neutralization activity toward V1 and V2 loops, we preincubated the sera with the three V1/V2 peptide groups. As shown in Table 2, 11 of 12 animal serum samples had less than 20% activity inhibition by both V1V2 pool 1 and pool 3. Compared to peptide pools 1 and 3, there was more inhibition of neutralization inhibited by the peptide a02. Seven of 12 samples had less than 50% inhibition of neutralization by V1 peptide a02, while 5 of 12 samples displayed 50 to 83% inhibition. These data suggested that trimeric YU2 gp140(/GCN4) elicited neutralization activity against the autologous virus YU2 that was partially, but not predominantly, directed toward the V1 and V2 loops, in contrast with neutralizing specificity elicited by monomeric YU2 gp120. In a similarly designed assay, we also analyzed selected sera elicited by the gp140(/GCN4) glycoproteins for inhibition by preincubation with a 2F5-binding peptide. No reduction in homologous neutralization activity by the 2F5-binding peptide could be observed, although this peptide could efficiently inhibit 2F5-mediated neutralization in the same experiment (data not shown).
Mapping heterologous neutralization specificity by peptide inhibition.
We observed that although homologous YU2 neutralization and heterologous neutralization of several isolates increased with repeated inoculations, neutralization of 89.6 declined after inoculations 2 through 5 (see Fig. 2 and 3A). Less dramatically, neutralization of the IIIB isolate also declined slightly after inoculations 3 to 4 (Fig. 2). To determine where the initial 89.6 neutralizing activity was directed, we performed adsorptions of the sera using the YU2 V1/V2 peptide pools and with the V3 peptide prior to performing neutralization assays. As shown in Fig. 6A, when we performed the adsorption/neutralizations over a range of serum dilutions from 1:10 to 1:640, most of the neutralization could be removed by the V3 peptide (in this case, a 40% reduction in neutralization is roughly a threefold difference in viral entry), but the V1/V2 peptides did not affect neutralization. From these data, IC50 values for 89.6 neutralization could be determined and were greater than 1:640 for animals 68 to 72. Given that we could now detect some V3-directed heterologous neutralization, we analyzed selected and relatively potent sera against other selected isolates. In contrast to 89.6, heterologous neutralization of JR-CSF elicited by either the trimer or the monomer in ASO2A adjuvant following the fifth inoculation was not V3 directed (Fig. 6B). We also mapped selected sera against BaL.01 following the fifth inoculation and found that similar to 89.6, neutralization was mostly adsorbed by the YU2 V3 peptide (approximately 10-fold reduction of viral neutralization) (see Fig S3 in the supplemental material), whereas most JR-FL
301 neutralization following the fifth inoculation was not V3 directed (data not shown).
|
|
|---|
Here we have shown that the binding titers were slightly but not substantially increased by emulsification of the YU2 Env proteins in the GSK adjuvants, but the neutralization potency was enhanced. Importantly, the YU2 gp140(/GCN4) trimers consistently, albeit in some cases modestly, outperform the YU2 gp120 molecules in terms of both neutralization potency and breadth, as determined by two independent neutralization assays, and the values are shown in parentheses and italics. These data are in agreement with those of our previous studies (22, 59) and consistent with the data reported in a similar investigation comparing ADA monomers to trimers by Kim et al. (27). Mapping of the homologous YU2 neutralization demonstrated that there was a distinct difference in the specificity of neutralization activity elicited by the YU2 gp120 monomers compared to the gp140 trimers, indicating that modestly improved neutralization elicited by the gp140 trimers is qualitative and not simply quantitative in nature. Another major finding is that the GSK adjuvants outperform Ribi adjuvant in terms of neutralization elicited from either the monomeric or trimeric molecules. Taken together, these two observations suggest that further modifications of the trimer, in the more potent GSK adjuvants, may continue to elicit better antibodies with increased neutralization breadth. There was a trend for a slight increase in the neutralization breadth of the sera elicited by the YU2 gp140(/GCN4) trimers in the AS02A adjuvant in both the PBMC-based assay and the pseudotype neutralization assay against IIIB, SF162, and JR-CSF that was marginally statistically significant (P = 0.057; data not shown). Further study of selected adjuvant-protein combinations is certainly warranted.
For some isolates, the neutralizing antibodies elicited by monomeric gp120 were directed toward the accessible and immunogenic V3 loop (25, 26, 40, 49, 62). The V2 loop has also been previously reported as a neutralization determinant (24, 44). Interestingly, for the monomeric YU2 gp120 immunogen, homologous neutralization mapped to a single region in the C terminus of the V1 loop. However, based upon our peptide neutralization inhibition data, the heterologous neutralization of SF162 and IIIB viruses appeared not to be mediated through V1-directed antibodies (data not shown). By comparison of homologous V1 residues (using the IIIB molecular clone HXBc2) coupled with the knowledge that IIIB and SF162 heterologous neutralization was not V1 directed, it appears that the YU2 homologous neutralization is likely directed at the N-terminal region of the V1 a02 peptide. More direct proof of this deduction will require further V1 peptide fine mapping. Strain-restricted, V1-directed antibodies have been reported in Abgenix XenoMouse animals inoculated with SF162 gp120 (23).
The trimer protein elicited homologous neutralizing activity that is not yet defined: only V3, V1, and 2F5 have been ruled out (by negative data) from the inhibition of neutralization assay with the appropriate homologous peptides. Heterologous neutralization may be likely achieved by some other means for both the monomer and the trimer. In fact, for a relatively V3-sensitive molecular clone such as BaL.01, substantial levels of neutralization elicited by both the monomer and the trimer were inhibited by the V3-derived peptide. For less-V3-sensitive strains such as JR-CSF, heterologous neutralization was not V3 mediated (Fig. 6 and Fig. S3B in the supplemental material). By process of elimination and by the relatively limited neutralization breadth, it is possible that relatively nonpotent CD4 binding site antibodies typified by F105 or b6 (42, 47) or CD4-inducible responses typified by 17b (54) have been elicited and may mediate neutralization of IIIB. However, these responses may vary over the course of immunization as the 89.6 isolate, which was not neutralized at all time points, is weakly neutralized (if at all) by most CD4 binding site antibodies except IgGb12. In fact, 89.6 neutralization, when observable, was mostly V3 directed. The waning of 89.6 neutralization (and to a lesser extent the non-V3 neutralization of IIIB) is interesting but potentially disturbing in terms of boosting selected responses at the cost of others. After two inoculations, only the trimer-elicited sera could neutralize this isolate; however, the neutralization waned precipitously between the inoculations 3 and 4 and was also deficient in the sera after inoculation 5. This is in contrast to the more potent and consistent homologous neutralization of YU2 or when comparing neutralization after inoculations 2 to 5 of the heterologous BaL.01, BaL.26, or JR-CSF isolates. For selected trimer-elicited sera, we mapped the majority of the 89.6 neutralization to the V3 loop. As shown in Fig. S3B, BaL.01 neutralization also maps to V3 but does not wane; in fact, it increases with repeated inoculations. Taken together, the data suggest that initially the elicited V3 loop antibodies are directed against the V3 tip, a region that is conserved between 89.6 and BaL.01. Following inoculations 3 to 4, for reasons that are not clear the specificity shifts toward tip-flanking residues of V3, which are not conserved between 89.6 and BaL.01, and the ability to neutralize 89.6 via V3 antibodies is lost. The more modest decreases in IIIB neutralization must occur by a different mechanism as this virus appeared not to be neutralized by YU2-elicited V3 antibodies. This study highlights that even in sera of modest breadth, there are multiple neutralization specificities present. The development of tools to map these diverse specificities is of a high priority, and a systemic approach to decipher the complex specificities in broadly neutralizing sera by the design of novel adsorption assays and viruses of defined sensitivity/resistance merits immediate and further investigation. Since there is evidence and modeling that V1 and V3 are proximal in the HIV functional spike (6, 28, 31, 34), it is possible that some combination of V1-directed plus V3-directed neutralizing responses might be elicited and neutralize a greater array of isolates. However, epitopes that bridge across Env protomers and that are already variable themselves are likely to be extremely strain restricted. The recently described trimer-dependent V2- and V3-specific and strain-restricted 2909 neutralizing antibody may be of this type (21).
In conclusion, the relatively robust homologous neutralization elicited by the YU2 gp140 trimers (IC50 of 1:186 dilution) suggests that even for a relatively resistant isolate such as YU2, there are "chinks in the viral armor." However, such accessible regions may be more strain specific, determined by variable loop interactions (and maintenance of function) and selection molded by concurrent circulating antibodies (56). This aspect may be worth further investigation of human sera exhibiting breadth of neutralization (such analyses are ongoing). These data emphasize the more general nature of the rare, broadly neutralizing antibodies (IgGb12, 2G12, 2F5, and 4E10) in guiding immunogen design, since they recognize more "general" chinks in the armor that are displayed by a relatively wide array of HIV-1 isolates. An obvious follow-up to this study is to mask (or delete) the V1 region (and perhaps V3) in both the context of the monomer and especially the trimer to see if the elicitation of antibodies can be shifted toward the targets implicated in conferring greater neutralization breadth. The general strategy of altering glycans to impact on a more focused antibody response has been suggested in two recent studies (43, 44). These and other protein modifications will be the focus of future studies directed toward further improvements of the gp140 soluble, stable envelope glycoprotein trimeric immunogens.
The analysis described in this study was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the Vaccine Research Center, NIAID, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://jvi.asm.org/. ![]()
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»