|
Biotecnologia Aplicada
Elfos Scientiae
ISSN: 0684-4551
Vol. 17, Num. 2, 2000, pp. 116
|
Biotecnología Aplicada 2000;17:116
Intranasal Immunization Using HBsAg-Acemannan
Formulations
Aguilar JC, Pichardo D, Leal MJ, Crombet L, Pentón E, Muzio V,
Guillén G
División de Vacunas. Centro de Ingeniería Genética y Biotecnología.
AP 6162, CP 10600, Ciudad de La Habana, Cuba.
Papers from Biotecnología Habana`99
Congress.
November 28-December 3, 1999.
Code Number: ba00029
Introduction
At present, the search for new adjuvants and immunological stimulators,
as well as the development of new ways of delivering antigens and pharmaceuticals,
is one of the lines of world research in the pharmaceutical field, especially
in vaccines [1].
Acemannan is a polysaccharide composed of mannose with O-acetylations,
in approximately 8 out of every 10 mannoses. lt is extracted as a major component
of the mucilaginous substance or leaf gel of Aloe barbadensis Miller,
a medicinal plant used throughout history.
Different in vitro tests indicate that mannans activate
monocytes and macrophages inducing the production of IFN-g, TNF-a, GM-CSF, IL-1b
and IL-6 [2]. The purposes of this work are: a) to demonstrate the enhancing
activity of acemannan on the humoral immune response against hepatitis B surface
antigen (HBsAg) through intranasal inoculation (IN), and b) to select the optimal
adjuvant concentration range of acemannan.
Materials and Methods
The first experiment was conducted in 5 groups of 8 Balb/c
mice, 7 to 10 weeks old. Mice were inoculated twice, 2 weeks apart, through
the nasopharyngeal route using volumes of 50 mL. All mice were ketamine-anaesthetized
and inoculated as shown in figures A-D. Extraction was performed through retroorbital
punction 28 days after the start of the immunization schedule. Titers were
determined by an anti-total HBsAg ELISA using an international standard (mIU/mL).
In the second and third experiments, different dose levels of
HBsAg were tested and the systemic inoculation controls were: intramuscular
(IM) (Exp. 2) and subcutaneous (SC) (Exp. 3), both adsorbed to alum. Mice
were inoculated three times. Titers were determined by ELISA to detect total
IgG in sera (Exps. 2 and 3) and total IgA in vaginal washes (Exp. 3).
The concentration of acemannan was determined by the Antrona
colorimetric method and was referred as mg of total hexoses/mL.
The statistical analysis was performed using the Students t
test and the F test to determine variance homogeneity (p < 0.05 was considered
a significant difference).
Results and Discussion
A strong enhancing activity was evidenced in the groups in which
acemannan was added (groups 2-5). Antibody titers in all groups were significantly
higher than that of the control of HBsAg in PBS (group l). The excessive increase
of polysaccharide concentration generated an inhibitory effect (group 5). This
was probably due to an increase of the resulting viscosity. The optimal adjuvant
concentration ranged between 0.150 and 0.450 mg/mL.
Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrate the strong effect of acemannan
when mixed with HBsAg. In both cases, the intensity of IgG titers generated
in sera after alum-adjuvated and acemannan-adjuvated groups was similar (Exp.
2, groups 2 and 3, and Exp. 3, groups A and B). No difference was observed for
serum IgG titers after IM and SC inoculations, compared with the corresponding
dose level of HBsAg inoculated nasally in acemannan.
In Exp. 2, the serum IgG response for the acemannan group was
higher than that obtained with HBsAg in phosphate-buffered saline (Exp. 2, groups
1 and 2). In Exp. 3, only group A (nasally-immunized mice using acemannan) generated
a strong vaginal IgA response.
Conclusions
1. We have demonstrated that the nasal route can be as efficient as systemic
routes in the induction of anti-HBsAg antibody responses in serum, with the
advantage of inducing strong mucosal responses.
2. The acemannan optimal adjuvant concentration range is 150 to 450 mg/mL
when used nasally along with HBsAg.
References
1. Report of the Expert Panel VI: Concerted efforts in the field
of mucosal immunology. Vaccine 1996;14:64464.
2. Peng SY, et al. Mol. Bio-ther 1991;
3:7987.
|