Preclinical Optimization of an Enterotoxigenic Adjuvanted Subunit Vaccine Using Response Surface Design of Experiments
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Enterotoxigenic (ETEC) is a leading cause of moderate-to-severe diarrhoea. ETEC colonizes the intestine through fimbrial tip adhesin colonization factors and produces heat-stable and/or heat-labile (LT) toxins, stimulating fluid and electrolyte release leading to watery diarrhoea. We reported that a vaccine containing recombinant colonization factor antigen (CfaEB) targeting fimbrial tip adhesin of the colonization factor antigen I (CFA/I) and an attenuated LT toxoid (dmLT) elicited mucosal and systemic immune responses against both targets. Additionally, the toll-like receptor 4 ligand second-generation lipid adjuvant (TLR4-SLA) induced a potent mucosal response, dependent on adjuvant formulation. However, a combination of vaccine components at their respective individual optimal doses may not achieve the optimal immune profile. We studied a subunit ETEC vaccine prototype in mice using a response surface design of experiments (DoE), consisting of 64 vaccine dose-combinations of CfaEB, dmLT and SLA in four formulations (aqueous, aluminium oxyhydroxide, squalene-in-water stable nanoemulsion [SE] or liposomes containing the saponin Quillaja saponaria-21 [LSQ]). Nine readouts focusing on antibody functionality and plasma cell response were selected to profile the immune response of parenterally administered ETEC vaccine prototype. The data were integrated in a model to identify the optimal dosage of each vaccine component and best formulation. Compared to maximal doses used in mouse models (10 µg CfaEB, 1 µg dmLT and 5 µg SLA), a reduction in the vaccine components up to 37%, 60% and 88% for CfaEB, dmLT and SLA, respectively, maintained or even maximized immune responses, with SE and LSQ the best formulations. The DoE approach can help determine the best vaccine composition with a limited number of experiments and may accelerate development of multi-antigen/component ETEC vaccines.
Gutierrez R, Porter C, Harro C, Talaat K, Riddle M, DeNearing B Microorganisms. 2024; 12(2).
PMID: 38399692 PMC: 10892241. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms12020288.
Recent advances in enterotoxin vaccine adjuvants.
Crothers J, Norton E Curr Opin Immunol. 2023; 85:102398.
PMID: 37976963 PMC: 11258862. DOI: 10.1016/j.coi.2023.102398.
Practical Considerations for Next-Generation Adjuvant Development and Translation.
Lykins W, Fox C Pharmaceutics. 2023; 15(7).
PMID: 37514037 PMC: 10385070. DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15071850.
Fisher K, Kinsey R, Mohamath R, Phan T, Liang H, Orr M NPJ Vaccines. 2023; 8(1):14.
PMID: 36797262 PMC: 9935550. DOI: 10.1038/s41541-023-00608-y.
Confronting challenges to enterotoxigenic vaccine development.
Fleckenstein J Front Trop Dis. 2022; 2.
PMID: 35937717 PMC: 9355458. DOI: 10.3389/fitd.2021.709907.