The evolution of humoral immune responses to past and novel influenza virus strains gives evidence for antigenic seniority.

The high genetic and antigenic variability of influenza virus and the repeated exposures of individuals to the virus over time account for the human immune responses toward this pathogen to continuously evolve during the lifespan of an individual. Influenza-specific immune memory to past strains has been shown to affect the immune responses to subsequent influenza strains and in turn to be changed itself through the new virus encounter. However, exactly how and to what extent this happens remains unclear. Here we studied pre-existing immunity against influenza A virus (IAV) by assessing IAV binding (IgG), neutralizing, and neuraminidase-specific antibodies to 5 different IAV strains in 180 subjects from 3 different age cohorts, adolescents, adults, and elderly, over a 5-year time span. In each age cohort, the highest neutralizing antibody titers were seen for a virus strain that circulated early in their life but the highest increase in titer was found for the most recent virus strains. In contrast, the highest IgG titers were seen against recent virus strains but the biggest increase in titer occurred against older strains. Significant increases in neutralizing antibody titers against a newly encountered virus strain were observed in all age cohorts demonstrating that pre-existing immunity did not hamper antibody induction. Our results indicate that the evolution of influenza-specific humoral immunity differs for rather cross-reactive virus-binding antibodies and more strain-specific neutralizing antibodies. Nevertheless, in general, our observations lend support to the antigenic seniority theory according to which the antibody response to influenza is broadened with each virus encounter, with the earliest encountered strain taking in the most senior and thus dominant position.

Comparison of influenza-specific neutralizing antibody titers determined using different assay readouts and hemagglutination inhibition titers: good correlation but poor agreement.

Determination of influenza-specific antibody titers is commonly done using the hemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI) and the viral microneutralization assay (MN). Both assays are characterized by high intra- and inter-laboratory variability. The HAI assay offers little opportunity for standardization. For the MN assay, variability might be due to the use of different assay protocols employing different readouts. We therefore aimed at investigating which of the MN assay readout methods currently in use would be the most suitable choice for a standardized MN assay that could serve as a substitute for the HAI assay. For this purpose, human serum samples were tested for the presence of influenza specific neutralizing antibodies against A/California/7/09 H1N1 (49 sera) or A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 (50 sera) using four different infection readout methods for the MN assay (cytopathic effect, hemagglutination, ELISA, RT qPCR) and using the HAI assay. The results were compared by correlation analysis and by determining the level of agreement before and after normalization to a standard serum. Titers as measured by the 4 MN assay readouts showed good correlation, with high Person's r for most comparisons. However, agreement between nominal titers varied with readouts compared and virus strain used. In addition, Pearson's correlation of MN titers with HAI titers was high but agreement of nominal titers was moderate and the average difference between the readings of two assays (bias) was virus strain-dependent. Normalization to a standard serum did not result in better agreement of assay results. Our study demonstrates that different MN readouts result in nominally different antibody titers. Accordingly, the use of a common and standardized MN assay protocol will be crucial to minimize inter-laboratory variability. Based on reproducibility, cost effectiveness and unbiased assessment of results we elected the MN assay with ELISA readout as most suitable for a possible replacement of the HAI assay.

Cross-Protective Immune Responses Induced by Sequential Influenza Virus Infection and by Sequential Vaccination With Inactivated Influenza Vaccines.

Sequential infection with antigenically distinct influenza viruses induces cross-protective immune responses against heterologous virus strains in animal models. Here we investigated whether sequential immunization with antigenically distinct influenza vaccines can also provide cross-protection. To this end, we compared immune responses and protective potential against challenge with A(H1N1)pdm09 in mice infected sequentially with seasonal A(H1N1) virus followed by A(H3N2) virus or immunized sequentially with whole inactivated virus (WIV) or subunit (SU) vaccine derived from these viruses. Sequential infection provided solid cross-protection against A(H1N1)pdm09 infection while sequential vaccination with WIV, though not capable of preventing weight loss upon infection completely, protected the mice from reaching the humane endpoint. In contrast, sequential SU vaccination did not prevent rapid and extensive weight loss. Protection correlated with levels of cross-reactive but non-neutralizing antibodies of the IgG2a subclass, general increase of memory T cells and induction of influenza-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. Adoptive serum transfer experiments revealed that despite lacking neutralizing activity, serum antibodies induced by sequential infection protected mice from weight loss and vigorous virus growth in the lungs upon A(H1N1)pdm09 virus challenge. Antibodies induced by WIV vaccination alleviated symptoms but could not control virus growth in the lung. Depletion of T cells prior to challenge revealed that CD8+ T cells, but not CD4+ T cells, contributed to cross-protection. These results imply that sequential immunization with WIV but not SU derived from antigenically distinct viruses could alleviate the severity of infection caused by a pandemic and may improve protection to unpredictable seasonal infection.

Effector mechanisms of influenza-specific antibodies: neutralization and beyond.

INTRODUCTION: Antibodies directed against influenza virus execute their protective function by exploiting a variety of effector mechanisms. Neutralizing antibodies have been thoroughly studied because of their pivotal role in preventing influenza virus infection and their presence in host serum is correlated with protection. Influenza antibodies can also exploit non-neutralizing effector mechanisms, which until recently have been largely overlooked. AREAS COVERED: Here, we discuss the antibody response to influenza virus in its entire breadth. Neutralizing antibodies mostly target variable epitopes on influenza surface proteins and interfere with virus binding, fusion, or egress. Non-neutralizing antibodies instead usually target conserved epitopes which can be located on surface as well as internal proteins. They drive viral clearance via interaction of their Fc region with components of the innate immune system such as immune effector cells (e.g. NK cells, macrophages) or the complement system. EXPERT COMMENTARY: Recent research has unraveled that influenza-specific antibodies target multiple proteins and make use of diverse effector mechanisms. Often these antibodies are cross-reactive among virus strains of the same subtype or even between subtypes. As such they are induced early in life and are boosted by regular encounters with virus or vaccine. Designing strategies to optimally exploit these pre-existing antibodies may represent the key for the development of new broadly protective influenza vaccines.