Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The technological approaches for making new vaccines have been growing rapidly in recent decades owing to significant advances in a broad range of interrelated fields, including next-generation sequencing and antibody repertoire analysis, molecular and structural biology, genetics (reverse vaccinology, synthetic biology), protein and polysaccharide chemistry, immunology, virology, bacteriology, fermentation, and macromolecular purification and formulation. An unprecedented leap forward was catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic, for which a broad range of technological approaches were used to develop COVID-19 vaccines in a record-short time period, especially the mRNA technology, that had never been evaluated clinically before mid-2020. In a global effort to win the race against the spreading of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the world learned the importance of vaccines and vaccination, and close-up attention by the media, the authorities and the broader community was given to every single step of vaccine research and development.
Historically, most of the available vaccines have been designed for prevention (prophylaxis) of infectious diseases. However, new technologies have extended this scope to vaccines for noninfectious diseases (e.g., cancer, autoimmune diseases, allergy, drug addiction) and therapeutic vaccines (e.g., certain infectious and noninfectious diseases). This broadening of scope is continuing to redefine the terms vaccine and vaccination .
There are two broad categories of vaccination: active and passive . References to the term vaccine generally refer to vaccines administered by active immunization. Active immunization stimulates the immune system to produce specific antibodies, cellular immune responses, or both to prevent and protect the vaccinee against a certain disease; to ameliorate a disease outcome; and to eventually eliminate a disease when vaccination is broadly applied. Passive vaccination uses a preparation of preformed antibodies that neutralize a pathogen or bind to a human cellular antigen and is administered before or around the time of known or potential exposure to a pathogen or to a subject already infected with the same pathogen or disease. Nevertheless, passive vaccination is desirable or essential in specific cases, particularly if no active vaccine is available or feasible, such as in the case of immunocompromised patients, including those undergoing certain types of cancer treatment and for acute illness, when the immune response to vaccination would not be rapid enough to prevent the disease. Passive immunization is discussed under “Antibody Preparations” below.
Vaccines are stored in solution (liquid or frozen) or as freeze-dried (lyophilized) formulation, depending on their stability and physical characteristics. Lyophilized vaccines are resuspended in diluent (resuspending fluid) at, or around, the time of administration. The vaccine solution and diluent may contain the following additives: (a) preservatives or antibiotics to prevent bacterial growth in multi-dose containers, (b) stabilizers, including proteins or other organic compounds to extend the shelf life of the product, (c) adjuvants for enhancing immune responses (see “Adjuvants” later), and (d) delivery systems for presenting the vaccine antigen(s) to appropriate cells of the immune system or for preserving or stabilizing the integrity or conformation of antigen(s) in vivo (see “Delivery Systems” below). The vaccine and the respective added components comprise the vaccine formulation .
This chapter summarizes the major technologies and key issues associated with their development, and immunological aspects related to the different kinds of vaccines. Key vaccines are grouped by technology approach and identified by development status, whether in preclinical development, in clinical evaluations or licensed ( Table 67.1 ). While most of the work will focus on viruses and bacteria, vaccines for noninfectious diseases either under development or licensed are discussed ( Table 67.2 ). The technologies and examples given should provide readers with an appreciation of the diversity of approaches being studied in vaccines research and development, for known pathogens and new targets not previously approachable.
Type of Vaccine b | Status of Development a | Example f | Reference | ||
Preclinical Evaluation c | Clinical Evaluation d | Licensed Product e | |||
ACTIVE | |||||
Live | |||||
Classic virus | |||||
Attenuation in cell culture | x | Poliovirus | |||
x | Rotavirus | ||||
x | Measles virus | ||||
x | Mumps virus | ||||
x | Varicella-zoster virus (VZV) | , | |||
Variants from other species | x | Smallpox (Vaccinia virus) | |||
x | Rotavirus | ||||
Reassorted genomes | x g | Rotavirus | , , | ||
x | Influenza virus | ||||
Temperature-selected mutants | x | Rubella virus | |||
x | Influenza virus | ||||
x | Influenza virus | ||||
x | Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) | ||||
Recombinant virus | |||||
Engineered genome | x | Herpes simplex virus (HSV) | , | ||
Deoptimized codons | x | Poliovirus | |||
Recombinant viral vector | x | HIV using Vaccinia virus h | |||
x | Tuberculosis | , | |||
x | HIV using adenovirus i | ||||
x x |
x | Ebola virus, allergy, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) using alphavirus j | , , , | ||
x | Dengue virus using yellow fever virus backbone | ||||
xx | Dengue virus using Dengue virus backbone | , | |||
x | SARS-CoV-2 virus using adenovirus, replication incompetent | ||||
x | SARS-CoV-2 virus using VSV or yellow fever virus, replication competent | , | |||
Classic bacteria | x | Tuberculosis (bacille Calmette-Guérin [BCG]) | |||
x | Bladder cancer (BCG) | ||||
x | Typhoid fever ( Salmonella typhi ) | ||||
Recombinant bacteria | x | Cholera ( Vibrio cholerae ) | |||
x | Shigella | ||||
Recombinant bacterial vector | x | S. typhi k | |||
x | V. cholerae l | ||||
x | Shigella flexneri m | ||||
x | Streptococcus gordonii | ||||
x | Listeria monocytogenes | ||||
x | BCG | , | |||
Dendritic cells | x | Prostate | |||
x | Glioblastoma | ||||
x | Autoimmunity | , | |||
Inactivated | |||||
Whole pathogen | |||||
Inactivated bacteria | x | Pertussis ( Bordetella pertussis ) | |||
x | Cholera | ||||
x | Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli | ||||
Inactivated virus | x | Poliovirus | |||
x | Influenza virus | ||||
x | Rabies virus | ||||
x | Japanese encephalitis virus | ||||
x | Hepatitis A virus | , | |||
x | SARS-CoV-2 | ||||
Whole human cell | x | Melanoma | , | ||
x | Multiple myeloma | ||||
Protein-Based/Subunit | |||||
Viral/bacterial | x | Hepatitis B virus (HBV) | |||
x | Pertussis | ||||
Tumor cells | x | Cancer | |||
Chemically inactivated | x | Tetanus ( Clostridium tetani ) | |||
x | Diphtheria ( Corynebacterium diphtheriae) | ||||
Genetically inactivated | x | Pertussis | |||
Recombinant polypeptide | x | HBV | |||
x g | Lyme disease ( Borrelia burgdorferi ) | ||||
x | Cholera | ||||
x | Human papillomavirus | , | |||
xx | HIV | ||||
xx | HSV | ||||
x | Meningococcal meningitis ( Neisseria meningitidis , serogroup B) | , , | |||
x | Varicella zoster virus | ||||
xx | SARS-CoV-2 | ||||
Fusion proteins | x | Pneumococcal ( Streptococcus pneumoniae ) | |||
x | Group A strep ( Streptococcus pyogenes ) | ||||
x | Meningococcal meningitis ( N. meningitidis , serogroup B) | ||||
x | RSV | ||||
x | Allergy | ||||
x | Diabetes | ||||
Peptide based | |||||
B-cell epitope | |||||
Aggregate | x | Alzheimer disease | |||
Fusion protein | x | Malaria l | |||
x | Lung cancer | ||||
Fusion peptide | x | Hypercholesterolemia | |||
Conjugate | x | Malaria m | |||
x | Fertility m | ||||
x | Pancreatic cancer g | ||||
x | Non-small cell lung carcinoma m | ||||
Complex peptide | x | Malaria | |||
Mimotopes | x | Cancer | |||
x | HIV | ||||
T-cell epitope | |||||
CTL epitope | x | HBV | |||
x | HIV | ||||
T-cell activation | xx | Kidney cancer | |||
T-cell receptor | x | Multiple sclerosis | |||
Carbohydrate and polysaccharide based | |||||
Polysaccharide | x | Haemophilus influenza type b (Hib) | |||
x | Meningococcal meningitis ( N. meningitidis, serogroup A,C,W,Y) | ||||
x | Pneumococcal | ||||
Polysaccharide conjugate | x | Hib n | |||
x | Pneumococcal o | , | |||
x | Meningococcal meningitis ( N. meningitidis , serogroup A,C,W,Y) | , | |||
x | Group B strep ( Streptococcus agalactiae ) l | ||||
Other carbohydrate | x | Ovarian, breast cancer | |||
x | Melanoma | ||||
Other | x | Breast cancer | |||
x | Schistosome | ||||
x | Cocaine | ||||
Nucleic Acid Based | |||||
Naked DNA | x | Influenza | , | ||
Facilitated DNA | x | HBV | , | ||
x | HIV | ||||
x | Metastatic renal cell carcinoma | ||||
x | Influenza | ||||
x | SARS-CoV-2 | ||||
Viral vector | x | Cancer | |||
x | Flavivirus | ||||
Viral delivery | x | HIV, malaria, melanoma, and prostate cancer using fowlpox virus p | |||
x | HIV using canarypox virus p | , , | |||
Bacterial delivery | x | S. flexneri | |||
RNA | x | Melanoma | |||
x | SARS-CoV-2 | , | |||
PASSIVE (ANTIBODY PREPARATIONS) | |||||
Polyclonal | |||||
Human immunoglobulin (Ig) | x | HBV (HBIG) | |||
x | VZV (VZIG) | ||||
x | CMV (CMVIG) | ||||
x | SARS-CoV-2 (hyperimmune serum from convalescent plasma) | ||||
Antibody fragment | x | RSV (RSVIG) | |||
x | Tetanus (TIG) | ||||
x | Digoxin | ||||
Monoclonal | |||||
Nonhuman | xx | Ovarian cancer | |||
Natural human | x | CMV | |||
Recombinant human | x | Melanoma | , , | ||
Human derived | x | HIV | |||
x | Ebola virus | ||||
x | SARS-CoV-2 | , , | |||
Mouse derived | x | Candida albicans | |||
Recombinant humanized | x | Colorectal and kidney cancer | |||
x | RSV | ||||
x | Breast cancer | ||||
x | Allergy | ||||
Recombinant chimeric | x | Non-Hodgkin lymphoma |
a This denotes the single most advanced status achieved by each example.
b These categories are presented in the same order and outlined as in the text.
c Not yet evaluated in a human clinical trial.
d In clinical trial but not yet licensed, whereby “xx” denotes large-scale or Phase III trials on the path to licensure.
e Licensed in one or more major countries in the world.
f These are representative examples for each vaccine strategy and not a comprehensive list of all examples, with key reference(s) illustrative of each example.
h Expressing more than 50 different foreign polypeptides, especially including HIV and colorectal cancer.
i Expressing foreign polypeptides, including HIV-1 gag and env genes.
j Expressing foreign polypeptides including Ebola and Marburg virus glycoproteins.
k Expressing foreign polypeptides include toxoids from E. coli, V. cholerae, and C. tetani and cancer-specific antigens.
l Fusion partner is hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg).
m Conjugate carrier is tetanus toxin (TT).
n Conjugate carriers are TT, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids-pediatric (DT), CRM 197 (cross-reactive material 197), and an outer membrane protein complex.
o Conjugate carrier is CRM 197 .
p Expressing foreign polypeptides, especially including HIV.
Target Cancer | Condition |
Bladder cell surface | Superficial bladder cancer |
Prostatic acid phosphatase | Prostate cancer |
GM 2 ganglioside | Melanoma |
MUC-1 mucinous glycoprotein | Non-small cell lung carcinoma |
HER2 glycoprotein | Breast cancer |
CD20 glycoprotein | Non-Hodgkin lymphoma |
Carcinoembryonic antigen | Carcinoma |
Addiction | |
Cocaine | Drug dependency |
Nicotine | Cigarette smoking |
Cardiovascular | |
Angiotensin | Hypertension |
Cholesterol ester transfer protein | Hypercholesterolemia |
Gastrointestinal | |
Gastrin 17 | Gastroesophageal reflux disease |
Autoimmune | |
Myelin basic protein | Multiple sclerosis |
Tumor necrosis factor α | Crohn’s disease |
Insulin, proinsulin, others | Diabetes |
Ragweed, others | Allergy |
Toxicity | |
Digoxin | Toxicity |
Reproduction | |
Human chorionic gonadotropin | Fertility |
In the course of 2020–2021, major pharmaceutical companies, government laboratories and academic investigators dedicated their energies to cope with the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 pandemic by using and combining different technologies to fast-track COVID-19 vaccine candidates. Although the landscape for such candidates is still highly variable (at the time of submission of this chapter), comprehensive reviews of all approaches have been published , and additional details are provided in Chapter 17 . In the following sections, we describe the different approaches that paved the way to the development and production of such vaccines.
Active immunization should ideally elicit lifelong and robust protective immunity after one or a few doses, while showing an excellent safety profile with minimal side effects. Available vaccines and vaccines under development generally fall short of this ideal, which continues to stimulate new research and development initiatives in the field.
While the term antigen denotes the property of an in vitro immunological reactivity, the term immunogen specifically refers to the property of eliciting an in vivo immune response.
There are three general categories of vaccines; Table 67.3 outlines the salient features. A live vaccine is generally a microorganism that replicates on its own in the host or infects cells and functions as an immunogen without causing disease. An inactivated vaccine contains an immunogen that cannot replicate in the host because the disease-causing microbe has been killed with chemicals, heat, or radiation. A nucleic acid-based vaccine (RNA, DNA, viral vectors), also incapable of replicating in humans, is taken up by cells and directs the synthesis of the vaccine antigen(s).
Characteristics | Advantages | Challenges |
Live Vaccines | ||
Able to replicate in the host | May elicit broader immune responses | Uncertain window for attenuation |
Attenuated in pathogenicity | May require fewer doses | Uncertain safety before large-scale use |
Elicit antibodies and cell-mediated immunity | Generally longer lasting protection | Stability |
Ability to analyze the final product | ||
Inactivated Vaccines | ||
Unable to replicate in the host | Cannot multiply or revert to pathogenicity | May require adjuvant |
Elicit mostly antibodies | Nontransmissable to another person | May require delivery system |
Generally less reactogenic | Immunogenic potency | |
Usually more feasible technically | Variable efficacy | |
Nucleic Acid-Based Vaccines | ||
Stimulate synthesis of antigens only in cells | Standardized method of production and analysis | Establishing proof-of-principle |
Elicit mostly cell-mediated immunity | Potential sustained immunological stimulation | Immunogenic potency |
The strategic choice for developing a live, inactivated or nucleic acid-based vaccine should consider the targeted infection or disease, pathogenesis, epidemiology and immunobiology as well as the technical feasibility of alternative vaccine designs. Epidemiology dictates the target population for the vaccine, while the age and health status of the target population may give an indication for specific designs deemed more appropriate for eliciting protective immunity. In the case of vaccines intended for healthy subjects (especially infants), minimizing reactogenicity is as critically important as minimizing the risk of developing iatrogenic disease in susceptible subjects. Toxicology studies address the former, while bioinformatics technologies are being used in part to address the latter through identification of microbial antigens that may lead through molecular mimicry to a cross-reactive immune response to normal human tissue (self) (discussed in greater detail in “Adjuvants” later and in “Bioinformatics Technologies and Vaccine Safety” later). On the other hand, the tolerance for reactogenicity and other potential adverse events is greater for a therapeutic cancer vaccine as the benefit far outweighs the risk. Finally, immunobiology should enable the identification of the immunity type(s) that should be elicited by the vaccine to be effective.
Some live vaccines are close to ideal in their capability to elicit lifelong protection in one or two doses with minimal reactogenicity. Such vaccines may be feasible in cases in which the natural infection or disease confers lifelong protection on the host. Live vaccines (with the exception of dendritic cell vaccines; see “Dendritic Cells as Autologous Vaccines” below) consist of viruses or bacteria that replicate to a limited degree in the host in a manner resembling that of the natural microorganism, thereby eliciting an immune response qualitatively similar to the one elicited by natural infection. The live vaccine is attenuated, that is, its disease-causing capacity has been reduced by biological or genetic manipulations. The live vaccine needs to be balanced by being neither over-attenuated (no longer infectious enough to function as a vaccine), nor under-attenuated (retaining pathogenicity even to a limited extent). Such vaccines elicit both humoral (antibodies) and cellular immunity (e.g., cytotoxic T lymphocytes [CTLs]).
Live vaccines are not technically feasible for most vaccines under development. The balance between incomplete attenuation (and consequent disease-causing capability) and complete attenuation (inadequately immunogenic) is delicate and, for some viruses or bacteria, technically unachievable at present. Because a live vaccine can replicate, it may be possible for it to revert to its more naturally pathogenic form unless there are multiple attenuating mutations. Moreover, some live vaccines can be transmitted from a vaccinee to a nonimmunized person, which can be quite serious if the recipient has an immune deficiency (e.g., AIDS or secondary to chemotherapy). When the natural viral infection fails to induce a protective immune response per se , an attenuated virus would not be expected to be protective without further engineering. As discussed in the following sections, live vaccines may be produced using either a classic or a recombinant technology strategy.
The production of live viral vaccines depends on the efficient propagation of the virus in cell culture. The approach is empirical, in that wild-type virus isolated from a natural human infection is passaged in vitro through one or more cell types with the goal of attenuating its pathogenicity. In contrast, a strategy to increase pathogenicity is to passage a viral or bacterial strain serially in vivo in a host species. The mechanism by which a mutation is introduced during the course of empirical attenuation is not well understood. In some cases (e.g., poliovirus), it has been possible to demonstrate attenuation in a primate species, whereas in most cases, attenuation is proven only through extensive clinical trials. The significant number of available licensed vaccines had determined the success of this empirical approach, which has been applied to oral vaccines (oral poliovirus and rotavirus (RV) , and to injected (parenteral) vaccines (measles, mumps, rubella, varicella). The reactogenicity profile of such vaccines has been satisfactory enough to allow worldwide broad acceptance for routine pediatric use (polio, measles). Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines have been widely used for decades as the trivalent MMR vaccine. More recently, following many attempts to achieve a stable and immunogenic formulation, the MMR and varicella vaccines have been combined into the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine. By means of intensive vaccination programs with oral poliovirus vaccine, polio is approaching worldwide eradication. As a striking example of the challenge to achieve the right level of attenuation, the Urabe strain of mumps virus was licensed after showing apparent safety in clinical trials. After several years of use in millions of children, vaccination with this strain was observed to cause aseptic meningitis at a rate of approximately 1:10,000. Given the availability of an alternative mumps vaccine, the Urabe strain was withdrawn and is no longer available as a result of the manufacturer’s exit from the vaccine market. Another highly relevant example is vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis which is a very rare adverse event (estimated at one case per 2.4 million doses administered) associated with live-attenuated oral poliovirus vaccination. It remains the vaccine of choice for controlling poliomyelitis in many countries because of its ease of use, low cost, and superiority in conferring intestinal immunity in immunologically naïve individuals. However, vaccine acquired paralytic polio remains a challenge to its use in many developed countries.
Smallpox, the first vaccine in history, is the prototype of this approach, used an animal virus that causes a veterinary disease similar to the human disease, which was isolated, cultivated and attenuated for use in humans: in order to elicit protection, the immune response elicited by the animal-derived virus should be sufficiently related to the naturally acquired immunological response to the human virus in humans. More than 200 years ago, Jenner discerned that persons exposed to cows were resistant to smallpox, so he used the virus isolated from cows (vaccinia virus) for human vaccination against smallpox (caused by variola virus). The immunization program was applied worldwide using vaccinia virus grown in vivo in the skin of calves and resulted in the complete eradication of smallpox worldwide by the mid-1970s—the only infectious disease ever eradicated in the world. Unfortunately, the vaccine had to reenter production in a modern cell culture-based process for potential use as a safeguard against the dissemination of variola virus as a bioterrorism weapon.
Similarly, first-generation Rotavirus (or RV) vaccines consisted of nonreassortant animal viruses isolated from rhesus monkeys and cows. However, such RV vaccines were not reproducibly efficacious as human vaccines: thus, new vaccines were developed that incorporated the human RV VP7 and VP4 proteins associated with disease protection and recovery. RV1 is a live attenuated oral vaccine licensed in the United States since 2008. RV5, a live vaccine containing reassortants, is discussed in the following section.
A reassortant virus, which contains genes from two parental viruses, is derived following coinfection of a cell with two viruses with segmented genomes. To improve the efficacy of animal RV, reassortant RVs were isolated containing mostly animal RV genes, which confer the attenuation phenotype for humans, and the gene(s) for human RV surface protein(s) that elicit serotype-specific neutralizing antibodies against human RV. , These reassortant RV vaccines have elicited higher efficacy rates than their nonreassortant parental animal viruses. The same approach has been applied to influenza vaccines, in which a virulent human influenza virus provides the genes encoding the immunogenic surface glycoproteins (hemagglutinin and neuraminidase). The quadrivalent reassortant rhesus RV vaccine is another example of the challenge in establishing the attenuation profile of a live vaccine. After 1 year of commercial distribution, it was observed that vaccination was associated with an incidence of intussusception of approximately 1:10,000 immediately postvaccination. Although the overall benefit-to-risk remained very high, the vaccine was withdrawn from distribution by the manufacturer. Subsequently, other RV vaccines were developed which are associated with much lower rates of intussusception. Two RV vaccines, Rotarix and RotaTeq, have been licensed since 2006. , RV vaccination is critically important for low income countries, where reported reduction of severe disease was 61% in African infants. , Accumulated real world evidence in the 2006–2019 period calculated a RV vaccine effectiveness of 86% in countries with low child mortality as compared as 63–66% in countries with high child mortality.
Viral mutants can be selected according to their relative growth properties at different temperatures. Such viruses are called temperature-sensitive, being unable to grow at elevated temperatures, or cold-adapted, having been selected for growth in vitro at lower than physiological (37°C) temperatures, that is, down to 25°C. The strategy behind this approach is that cold-adapted or temperature-sensitive viruses will replicate less vigorously in vivo than their wild-type parental virus, hence less virulent and phenotypically attenuated. A cold-adapted rubella vaccine has been widely used as part of MMR vaccine. A cold-adapted influenza vaccine based on reassortants was the first live vaccine licensed for intranasal administration, and one was used widely in Russia. The use of a double mutant (one that contains two independent mutations) is an important additional refinement resulting in a much lower frequency of reversion to wild-type virulence than for a single mutant, exemplified by a double temperature-sensitive respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine tested in the clinics.
Specific modifications or deletions can be made in viral genes so that the virus is more stably attenuated. The increased stability of the attenuated phenotype results from modification(s) extensive enough that reversion through back-mutation is impossible or highly unlikely. In contrast, attenuated viruses derived by classic strategies may have only point mutations and therefore retain the capability to revert. In an attempt to generate a new vaccine, herpes simplex virus (HSV) was genetically engineered in three ways : (a) to induce attenuation, (b) to provide antibody markers of vaccination that differ from those of wild-type HSV infection, and (c) to protect against both HSV-1 and HSV-2. In another example, a particular HSV glycoprotein gene was deleted, resulting in an HSV strain that cannot replicate; this recombinant virus is produced in vitro in a cell line that supplies the deleted glycoprotein gene in trans , and the resultant virus can initiate infection in the host without further replication (termed replication-defective ).
Another molecular strategy for attenuation relies in deoptimized codons with the goal to generate a replication-defective strain. Polioviruses with deoptimized codons in the capsid region produce less infectious virus and are more highly attenuated, yet still efficiently elicit neutralizing antibodies that are protective in a mouse challenge model.
Recombinant technology also has been applied to develop live vaccines in which foreign polypeptide antigens from pathogens have been engineered into carriers. This strategy aims at presenting the foreign antigen to the immune system in the context of a live virus infection and stimulating the immune system to respond to the foreign polypeptide antigen as a live immunogen, with the expectation of developing a broader immunity (humoral and cellular). The foreign polypeptide is expressed within the infected cell and it is transported to the cell surface or broken down into peptides, which are transported to the cell surface where they may elicit cell-mediated immune responses. This strategy has also the potential advantage of amplifying of the immunogenic signal when the live vector initiates multiple rounds of replication (nonreplicating vectors are discussed in “Delivery Systems” below). If the vector virus is a commonly used vaccine, one could immunize simultaneously against the vector virus and another pathogen, ideally in a single dose. However, the preexisting or induced immune response to the live viral vector may limit the effectiveness of revaccination.
Vaccinia virus was the prototype viral vector in which dozens of different foreign polypeptides have been expressed. Immunizations of animals with this virus resulted in protection in a wide range of infections and oncology models. Recombinant vaccinia virus expressing HIV-1 gp160 has been tested clinically for prophylactic and therapeutic applications.
Given the known adverse events of vaccinia virus observed in the worldwide eradication program—which are more serious in immunocompromised persons—this virus has been engineered to reduce its virulence without compromising its efficacy as a live viral vector. , By passaging vaccinia virus several hundred times in chicken embryo fibroblasts, the highly attenuated Modified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA) was developed. This virus was safe in animals after experimental immune suppression, which led to its use in clinical trials with recombinant HIV vaccines, including MVA expressing monomeric gp120. , MVA has also been used to express antigen 85A from Mycobacterium tuberculosis which was well tolerated and immunogenic, but not efficacious, in infants and adults. , Two other members of the poxvirus family, fowlpox and canarypox viruses, were being developed as naturally attenuated live virus vectors that can infect human cells but not produce infectious viral progeny. Recombinant vaccinia and fowlpox viruses expressing carcinoembryonic antigen have shown clinical activity against tumors bearing this antigen.
RNA viruses can also be engineered into vectors for expressing foreign polypeptides. Lymphocytic choriomeningitis is one example of an RNA virus used as a vector. Sindbis and other alphaviruses have received extensive attention owing to their broad host range, ability to infect nondividing cells, and potential high-level expression per cell. Sindbis has been developed into a viral vector-DNA-based vaccine (see “Nucleic Acid-Based Vaccines” below). Vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) vectors expressing filovirus proteins have been shown to protect against lethal challenge by Ebola or Marburg viruses, and alphavirus expressing cytomegalovirus (CMV) glycoprotein has been developed as a candidate CMV vaccine. The versatility of alphavirus vectors as a vaccine strategy is further manifested for noninfectious-disease targets, in that a vector encoding a grass pollen allergen is able to prevent allergic sensitization in a mouse model.
Given the Ebola outbreak that started in Africa in May 2014, global vaccine efforts were accelerated leading to the entry of two vector-based vaccine candidates into efficacy trials in humans. One is derived from a chimpanzee adenovirus engineered to express glycoproteins of ebolavirus, and the other is based on the VSV vector that has been engineered to express Ebola virus glycoproteins. Clinical trial results from a Phase III trial using the vaccine based on the VSV vector showed an efficacy of 100%. In 2019, the rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine (Erbevo) was licensed.
Another growing threat that has made the development of an effective vaccine an international priority is dengue disease. Vaccine development programs in both academic and industry settings have investigated various technologies, and the only successful dengue vaccine to date (reporting positive Phase III efficacy data) is a recombinant, live, attenuated, tetravalent dengue vaccine (CYD-TDV). This vaccine consists of four recombinant dengue vaccine viruses (CYD 1 to 4), each constructed by replacing the genes coding for the premembrane and envelope proteins of the yellow fever 17D vaccine virus with those from the wild-type dengue viruses, generating chimeric complementary DNAs that are individually transcribed to RNA, and then RNA transfection in Vero cells. CYD-TDV (Dengvaxia) was licensed in 2016 with 56–61% efficacy against virologically confirmed dengue. , In 2017, the vaccine was recommended to be used only in people who have previously had a dengue infection, as outcomes may be worsened in those who have not been previously infected. Recently, two other chimeric dengue vaccines entered phase III clinical trials. DENVax/TAK-003 is composed of a live attenuated DENV-2 and chimeric DENV-1,3,4 on DENV-2 backbone, and demonstrated an overall vaccine efficacy of 80.9% against symptomatic dengue in the Asia-Pacific and Latin America regions. Similarly, Butantan-DV/TV003 vaccine, composed of live attenuated DENV-1,2,3 and chimeric DENV-4 on DENV-2 backbone, reported seroconversion to all strains in over 70% of subjects in phase II trial, while a phase III trial is ongoing.
It has been difficult to develop live attenuated bacterial vaccines by classic strategies because attenuation is difficult to achieve without reversion. Also, bacteria could stop expressing virulence factors in vitro , then turn on expression when in the host.
Early in the 20th century, a strain of Mycobacterium bovis , also known as bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) was attenuated through 231 successive in vitro subcultures over 13 years. There are many strains of BCG vaccine available worldwide that are derived from this original strain. These vaccines vary in terms of tolerability, immunogenicity, and rate of protective efficacy for tuberculosis in clinical trials (range: 0–80% protection) for reasons that may relate to the actual vaccine strains or to differences in clinical trial designs or populations. BCG vaccines have been inoculated into billions of people worldwide, have a generally acceptable tolerability profiles, and have an important role in protection against childhood tuberculosis. BCG vaccines have also been administered orally. , Following the observation that patients with tuberculosis have reduced rates of cancer, BCG vaccine was developed into the first cancer vaccine, being indicated for the treatment of superficial bladder cancer by intravesicular instillation. BCG vaccine has also been used as an adjuvant for the priming doses of certain cancer vaccines and been shown to induce non-specific immune effects as outlined in Chapter 3 of this edition.
Chemical mutagenesis followed by selection was used to derive the attenuated Ty21a strain of Salmonella typhi. This vaccine was licensed for preventing typhoid fever based on its record of safety and efficacy (approximately 60% for several years) after a regimen of three or four doses.
Recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology can be applied to attenuate any new bacterial strain that holds promise to be a live attenuated vaccine. Therefore, it seems unlikely that a new live bacterial vaccine attenuated by a classic strategy alone will be developed in the future.
The engineering of bacteria for attenuation is much more complex than for viruses because bacterial genomes are approximately 100-fold larger than those of viruses. The strategy for attenuation, like that for viruses, is to identify the gene(s) responsible for the virulence of bacteria or for their ability to colonize and survive in host tissue(s) and then eliminate the gene or abolish or modulate its in vivo expression. As is the case for modification of viruses, there must be a balance between the virulence of a bacterial strain and its activity as a vaccine, and it is possible to over-attenuate a bacterial strain to the point that it no longer replicates sufficiently in vivo and is no longer immunogenic. Vibrio cholerae strains have been developed as live cholera vaccines; attenuation has been accomplished by rDNA-directed deletion of genes encoding virulence factors (e.g., cholera toxin [CT]). To ensure attenuation by reducing the probability of reversion, deleting at least two independent genes or genetic loci that contribute to virulence is highly desirable. There have also been attempts to develop live Shigella vaccines through particular chromosomal or plasmid-based gene mutations to reduce pathogenicity.
Suitable bacterial strains have been engineered into live vectors for expressing foreign polypeptides. The most common development has been to engineer enteric pathogens to induce mucosal immunity against the foreign polypeptide following oral delivery. S. typhi vectors have been the most commonly developed strains in terms of immunology, molecular design, and clinical testing. Strains of V. cholerae , Shigella flexneri , and Listeria monocytogenes have also been engineered. The challenges for these vectors are to retain sufficient virulence to replicate in the gut while achieving sufficient attenuation and expressing appropriate levels of foreign polypeptides. The BCG vaccine strain has also been engineered as a live vector to express foreign polypeptides. BCG offers additional protective effects via epigenetic reprogramming of innate immune cells and induction of cytokines, a phenomenon called “trained immunity”, which is associated with protection from nonmycobacterial infections such as yellow fever. The first clinical trials of a recombinant BCG vaccine (rBCG30) were initiated with BCG30 (Phase I), which is a recombinant BCG Tice strain derived from the Mycobacterium–Escherichia coli shuttle vector pSMT3 and expresses approximately 5-fold more M. tuberculosis 30-kDa protein than the parental BCG strain. rBCG30 was found to be well tolerated and more immunogenic than BCG. Recombinant BCG strain ΔureC expressing listeriolysin O pore forming protein (hly) is also in phase II–III clinical development (NCT03152903), after showing superior protection over parental BCG strain in mice. BCG has also been engineered to express recombinant Plasmodium falciparum CSp or Toxoplasma gondii ROP2 antigens, inducing specific immune responses following mice immunization. , One aspect of the versatility of BCG is its efficacy by different routes of administration (oral, intranasal, and intradermal), which allows the development of alternative vaccination strategies. ,
Streptococcus gordonii , a gram-positive commensal (nonpathogenic) bacterium, has been engineered to express foreign polypeptides on its surface by genetic fusion to attachment sequences of S. gordonii M protein. One significant challenge is whether the foreign polypeptide will be sufficiently immunogenic, given that this bacterial species does not naturally elicit a strong immune response.
Bacteria that replicate intracellularly can be engineered to deliver plasmid DNA into host cells for expressing vaccine antigens. S. flexneri has been attenuated by a deletion mutant in the asd gene, an essential gene. While such a strain can be propagated in vitro in the presence of diaminopimelic acid and can invade cells (as long as it maintains a plasmid encoding invasion- associated polypeptides), it cannot replicate in vivo , where diaminopimelic acid is unavailable. A plasmid harboring a eukaryotic promoter and recombinant gene was transformed into this strain. The resultant recombinant S. flexneri strain was able to invade mammalian cells in vitro and to express the plasmid-encoded protein as a vaccine antigen. Because S. flexneri replicates in the intestine and stimulates mucosal immunity, this vector may be delivered orally to transfer DNA into host cells where mucosal immunity is stimulated. Other bacterial species that invade mammalian cells but not divide may also be able to deliver recombinant plasmids to different cell types for expressing recombinant proteins as vaccine antigens.
Dendritic cells can be exploited as potent professional antigen-presenting cells for tumor-specific antigens by isolating these from the patient and ex vivo transferring mixed antigens from a person’s tumor or alternatively with a recombinant immunostimulatory protein. The DCs process the antigens and re-express them on the DC surface. The cells then are reintroduced into the patient for antigen presentation and immune stimulation of T cells. DCs loaded with prostate-specific antigen genetically linked to the granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor cytokine have shown evidence for clinical efficacy in immunotherapy of prostate cancer and were licensed in 2010 (Sipuleucel-T). Over the last decade, new technologies provided improvement of DC therapy for prostate cancer, although no new product has been approved yet. The mixed-antigen approach has shown promise for glioblastoma. , Because autoimmune diseases are characterized by the loss of immunological tolerance to self-antigenic determinants, it may be possible to exploit DCs as antigen-presenting cells to achieve tolerance, as has been demonstrated in animal models of diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and autoimmune encephalitis. Clinical trials are being conducted to study DC-based treatments for diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and Crohn’s disease. Initial results of phase I trials indicated that DC therapy was safe and showed signs of clinical improvement.
Inactivated vaccines have safety advantages, as they are unable to replicate (see Table 67.3 ). Such vaccines are generally well tolerated, especially those that are purified to remove other macromolecules (i.e., subunit vaccines). Subunit vaccines include primarily the antigens that best stimulate the immune system and, in some cases, use very specific parts of the antigen (epitopes) that antibodies or T cells recognize and bind. Because subunit vaccines contain only the essential antigens without the other components of the microbe, the chances for adverse reactions are less. Subunit vaccine technology is discussed in greater detail below in “Protein-Based/Subunit Vaccines.” Given the broad range of available approaches, it is generally easier to produce an inactivated vaccine than a live vaccine. The immunogenicity of such vaccines can be enhanced by administration with adjuvant or delivery system (see “Adjuvants” below). Nevertheless, this type of vaccine usually requires multiple doses, often followed by booster vaccinations, to attain long-term protective immunity. For example, short-term protection was shown following a single dose of a formalin-inactivated hepatitis A vaccine in children 2–16 years old, who remained free of infection after 10 months. These vaccines usually stimulate humoral immune responses, prime immunological memory and may stimulate cell-mediated immunity when administered with certain adjuvants and delivery systems. Multiple approaches for developing inactivated vaccines are discussed below.
In the early 20th century, the only technically feasible approach was the use of the whole pathogen since there was essentially no knowledge of antigens and their role in immunity. The inactivation of whole bacteria or whole viruses had the objective of eliciting the formation of antibodies to many antigens, from which some antibodies presumably would neutralize the pathogen or its virulence determinants.
These vaccines are prepared by cultivating the bacteria (e.g., Bordetella pertussis ) and inactivating the whole cells with heat or chemical agents (e.g., thimerosal or phenol ) without further purification. Owing to their highly crude nature, the reactogenicity of such vaccines, when given parenterally, was greater than that of other types of vaccines. Concerns for vaccine-related reactions led to the development of a series of new acellular pertussis vaccines (subunit vaccines) which replaced the whole-cell vaccine in developed countries, although whole-cell vaccines remain in use in many parts of the world as described in Chapter 45 . On the other hand, inactivated whole-cell V. cholerae and enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) vaccines are well tolerated by the oral route. Even though the ETEC vaccine is now under active development, it seems less likely that new bacterial vaccines will be made in this manner given the number of alternative technologies available to prepare purified vaccines and the stringent regulatory standards that were developed over time.
Inactivated viral vaccines, prepared using this old technology, have been available for many decades, and are usually very well tolerated. Viruses are shed into cell culture media, the cell-free media is collected, and the virus particles are enriched by straightforward purification techniques. Successes include poliovirus, influenza virus, rabies virus, and Japanese encephalitis virus vaccines. Alternatively, in the case of killed hepatitis A virus vaccine, infected cells are lysed, and virus particles are purified. These viral particles are chemically inactivated, typically by treatment with formalin, and then may be adjuvanted by adsorption onto aluminum salts. The key epitopes on the surface of many nonenveloped small viruses that elicit a protective immune response (protective epitope) often are conformational, formed by the highly ordered assembly of viral proteins into precise repeated structures. Inactivated viral vaccines tend to be highly potent immunogens. Thus, this classic strategy, which has an excellent track record of producing well-tolerated and efficacious vaccines, remains the technology of choice for many viral vaccines. Similar to live vaccines, there have been inactivated vaccines associated with rare adverse events including atypical measles after measles vaccination (characterized by febrile illness with headache, photophobia, cough, and pulmonary infiltrates) and enhanced pulmonary disease following formalin-inactivated RSV vaccination. A newer inactivated adjuvanted influenza vaccine produced using a split-virus approach (where the virus has been disrupted by a detergent) was significantly associated with a very rare adverse event, narcolepsy, which was not seen with another adjuvanted influenza vaccine produced using a subunit approach (a process that removed/reduced the amount of other influenza viral components besides hemagglutinin and neuraminidase) and is discussed in greater detail below in “Adjuvants.”
Some of the designs for cancer vaccines are based on the use of individual tumor-specific antigens, either purified or expressed in a vector. A concern regarding using individual antigens in a vaccine is that the induced immune response following vaccination or administration of antibodies may stimulate antigenic modulation and diminished expression of the target antigen, loss of major histocompatibility complex class I expression or loss of other T-cell receptor-associated signaling, thereby reducing efficacy. The advantage of inactivated allogeneic whole-tumor-cell vaccines is the opportunity to present a wide array of tumor-specific antigens to the immune system. Tumor cell lines are expanded in vitro , pooled, and inactivated. A melanoma vaccine derived from two tumor cell lines and given with a synthetic adjuvant is licensed in Canada, but further development for the European and U.S. market was discontinued. In addition, autologous tumor cells modified with the hapten dinitrophenol and adjuvanted with BCG have shown evidence of clinical benefit for melanoma and were initially licensed in Australia but subsequently withdrawn and eventually discontinued because of financial constraints and subsequent decision to discontinue manufacturing. ,
Tumor cells can also be genetically modified to express immunomodulators that may enhance antigen-specific antitumor immune responses. Irradiation of cells transduced with the recombinant vector renders them unable to proliferate, yet still able to secrete the immunomodulator. Autologous melanoma cells are transduced with a recombinant adenovirus expressing granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor; the cells are then irradiated and reinfused to patients with melanoma, resulting in an antitumor effect. Likewise, autologous plasma cells transduced with recombinant adenovirus expressing interleukin-2 are irradiated and reinfused to patients with multiple myeloma.
Given the complexities discussed previously for inactivated vaccines, developing a (purified) protein-based vaccine is the favored strategy for many pathogens for which the isolated polypeptides contain the protective epitopes. Protein-based approaches have relied on genetic, biochemical, and immunological analyses to identify the specificity of protective antibodies to polypeptide antigens. Genomics has also enabled the identification of new vaccine antigens. Once the complete sequence (or portions thereof) of the genomic DNA or RNA becomes available, open reading frames are identified, and the derived amino acid sequences are inspected for features suggestive of surface localization (e.g., homologies with other proteins that are vaccine candidates or hydrophobic N-terminal sequences). The genes are expressed in a recombinant host cell (typically E. coli ), and the recombinant polypeptide is then purified and used to immunize animals. Alternatively, the gene is injected into mice as RNA or DNA vaccines (see “Nucleic Acid-Based Vaccines” below). The derived antisera can be used in biological assays (neutralization of viruses, opsonization of bacteria, or binding to the pathogen or human cancer cell surface) to determine whether the protein will be an attractive vaccine candidate. The new protein is also used in animal challenge models. One of the earliest applications of genomics technology was linked to hepatitis C virus following the cloning of its viral genome. The application of genomics to Neisseria meningitidis was accompanied by the analysis of approximately 600 putative proteins, resulting in the identification of several leading candidate vaccine antigens through a process now termed reverse vaccinology. This meningococcal vaccine has been licensed for use in major markets worldwide.
Numerous discovery technologies have been used to identify human proteins (or carbohydrates) that are candidate cancer vaccine antigens, including unique tumor-specific and tissue-specific antigens and shared disease-related antigens expressed in a range of tumors but not in normal adult tissues. These antigens have been engineered and formulated into vaccines based on their polypeptides (or carbohydrates) by means of the technologies described subsequently.
The first protein-based vaccines relied on natural sources of antigens. In this regard, the first hepatitis B vaccine is unique in using a human source (plasma) for the vaccine antigen. Liver cells of persons chronically infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) shed excess hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) into the blood. The HBsAg, a 22-nm lipoprotein particle antigen, has protective epitopes. To develop a vaccine, plasma was harvested from long-term chronic hepatitis B carriers, HBsAg purified, and the final preparation subjected to one to three inactivation techniques (depending on the manufacturer) to kill HBV and any other adventitious human agents possibly present in the starting plasma. This vaccine was well tolerated and highly efficacious, but it is no longer used as the vaccine can now be made by recombinant technology.
Proteins purified from cultures of B. pertussis have been combined to formulate acellular pertussis vaccines, which have replaced whole-cell pertussis vaccine for routine pediatric vaccinations in most developed countries. Depending on the number of different protein antigens, these licensed acellular pertussis vaccines are referred to as one-, two-, three-, four-, or five-component vaccines. These vaccines all contain pertussis toxoid, which when combined with other pertussis antigens, comprises the acellular pertussis vaccines. One preparation of the pertussis toxoid component is described in “Genetic Inactivation” below.
Proteins isolated from individual tumors have been used as cancer vaccines. In one application, individual tumors were isolated, the autologous gp96 heat-shock protein was purified from each tumor, and the heat-shock protein preparation was injected into the respective subject, resulting in stimulation of CTL responses.
Many bacteria produce protein toxins that are responsible for the pathogenesis of disease, including tetanus and diphtheria. The toxin molecules are purified from bacterial cultures ( Clostridium tetani [T], and Corynebacterium diphtheriae [D]), and then detoxified by incubation with a chemical such as formalin or glutaraldehyde. These detoxified toxins, referred to as toxoids, are included in the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) combination vaccine. ,
The chemical “toxoiding” procedure has the disadvantages of potential alteration of protective epitopes (with ensuing reduced immunogenicity) and the potential for reversion to a biologically active toxin. However, rDNA technology can be used to produce a stable toxoid. For example, pertussis toxin was mutated (in two locations to ensure stability) to reduce its enzymatic activity. The altered gene was substituted for the native gene in B. pertussis , resulting in an immunogenic but stably inactivated pertussis toxoid. This double-mutant pertussis toxoid (which also is treated with formalin under mild conditions to improve its immunogenicity and stability) is a component of one particular acellular pertussis vaccine, which is not in use clinically at this time, while other acellular pertussis vaccines use nonrecombinant pertussis toxoid and are described in more detail in Chapter 45 . A genetic approach to derive a diphtheria toxoid also was successful following the mutation of C. diphtheriae cultures and screening for enzymatically inactive yet antigenic toxin molecules. This genetic toxoid (CRM 197 ) is the protein carrier for a licensed Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (see sections below). This technology also has been applied to V. cholerae toxin and ETEC toxin to produce candidate mucosal adjuvants (see later section).
The expression of recombinant polypeptides as subunit vaccines arguably has been the most extensively used and widely accepted application of rDNA technology for the development of new vaccines and these approaches are summarized.
The first application of rDNA technology to the production of a vaccine was for hepatitis B through the expression of the HBsAg gene in baker’s yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae , giving rise to 22-nm HBsAg particles. In contrast, expression of the HBsAg gene in E. coli gave rise to HBsAg polypeptides but not HBsAg particles. The yeast-derived HBsAg virus-like particles (VLPs) were very similar in structure to HBV virions. The purified HBsAg is adjuvanted with aluminum salts. This vaccine supplanted the equally efficacious and well-tolerated plasma-derived vaccine that was initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1981 and discontinued in 1990. With the goal of an edible vaccine, HBsAg also has been expressed in transgenic potato tubers and has been shown to be safe and immunogenic in clinical trials.
Particles are almost always more immunogenic than individual polypeptides ( Fig. 67.1 ). Furthermore, particles (including VLPs) usually elicit antibodies to conformational epitopes on the particle (and on the respective virus), whereas isolated surface polypeptides of the particle might not. Examples of such particle immunogens are hepatitis A virus virions (immunogenic in humans at dosage levels as low as 50 ng) and VLPs for human papillomavirus (HPV). The HPV virion is a highly ordered structure whose major protein is L1 and when expressed in eukaryotic cells, results in the formation of VLPs that elicit HPV-neutralizing antibodies. Bivalent, quadrivalent, and nonavalent HPV vaccines have been shown to be highly effective and have been licensed.
There are innumerable ongoing applications of rDNA technology to produce natural proteins as candidate vaccine antigens for viral, bacterial, and parasitic infections. The major Borrelia burgdorferi surface protein (OspA [outer surface protein A]), expressed in E. coli as a recombinant lipoprotein, was licensed for the prevention of Lyme disease, it was discontinued but was recently reconsidered in clinical trials (NCT04801420). Recombinant HIV-1 gp120 (rgp120) expressed in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells was formulated into a vaccine that was in Phase III clinical trials and showed no efficacy. , Similarly, CHO cell-derived recombinant HSV glycoproteins were evaluated in Phase III clinical trials and showed almost no efficacy (9%, with 95% confidence interval –29% to 36%), with no effect on the duration of the first clinical episode of genital HSV-2 or the frequency of subsequent recurrences. A N. meningitidis serogroup B vaccine composed of two recombinant lipidated factor H binding protein variants individually produced in E. coli was licensed in the United States for individuals 10–25 years of age. Finally, an AS01 adjuvanted subunit vaccine containing recombinant varicella-zoster virus glycoprotein E has demonstrated 97% efficacy in a Phase III clinical trial for reducing the risk of shingles in adults over 50 years old and provides a more efficacious vaccine than the approved live attenuated herpes zoster vaccine.
Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles
If you are a member. Log in here