Aluminum Hydroxide And Aluminum Phosphate Adjuvants Elicit A Different Innate Immune Response.

Aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3) and aluminum phosphate (AlPO4) are widely used adjuvants in human vaccines. However, a rationale to choose one or the other is lacking since the differences between molecular mechanisms of action of these adjuvants are unknown. In the current study, we compared the innate immune response induced by both adjuvants in vitro and in vivo. Proteome analysis of human primary monocytes was used to determine the immunological pathways activated by these adjuvants. Subsequently, analysis of immune cells present at the site of injection and proteome analysis of the muscle tissue revealed the differentially regulated processes related to the innate immune response in vivo. Incubation with Al(OH)3 specifically enhanced the activation of antigen processing and presentation pathways in vitro. In vivo experiments showed that only intramuscular (I.M.) immunization with Al(OH)3 attracted neutrophils, while I.M. immunization with AlPO4 attracted monocytes/macrophages to the site of injection. In addition, only I.M. immunization with Al(OH)3 enhanced the process of hemostasis after 96 hours, possibly related to neutrophilic extracellular trap formation. Both adjuvants differentially regulated various immune system-related processes. The results show that Al(OH)3 and AlPO4 act differently on the innate immune system. We speculate that these different regulations affect the interaction with cells, due to the different physicochemical properties of both adjuvants.

Activation of Human Monocytes by Colloidal Aluminum Salts.

Subunit vaccines often contain colloidal aluminum salt-based adjuvants to activate the innate immune system. These aluminum salts consist of micrometer-sized aggregates. It is well-known that particle size affects the adjuvant effect of particulate adjuvants. In this study, the activation of human monocytes by hexagonal-shaped gibbsite (ø = 210 ± 40 nm) and rod-shaped boehmite (ø = 83 ± 827 nm) was compared with classical aluminum oxyhydroxide adjuvant (alum). To this end, human primary monocytes were cultured in the presence of alum, gibbsite, or boehmite. The transcriptome and proteome of the monocytes were investigated by using quantitative polymerase chain reaction and mass spectrometry. Human monocytic THP-1 cells were used to investigate the effect of the particles on cellular maturation, differentiation, activation, and cytokine secretion, as measured by flow cytometry and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Each particle type resulted in a specific gene expression profile. IL-1ß and IL-6 secretion was significantly upregulated by boehmite and alum. Of the 7 surface markers investigated, only CD80 was significantly upregulated by alum and none by gibbsite or boehmite. Gibbsite hardly activated the monocytes. Boehmite activated human primary monocytes equally to alum, but induced a much milder stress-related response. Therefore, boehmite was identified as a promising adjuvant candidate.

Stabilised aluminium phosphate nanoparticles used as vaccine adjuvant.

Aluminium phosphate is a commonly used adjuvant consisting of heterogeneously sized aggregates up to several micrometers. However, aluminium phosphate nanoparticles may exhibit an improved adjuvant effect. In this study, nanoparticles were made by sonication of commercially available aluminium phosphate adjuvant, resulting in particles with a size (Z-average diameter) between 200-300 nm and a point of zero charge of 4.5. To prevent reaggregation, which occurred within 14 days, a screening of excipients was performed to identify stabilisers effective under physiological conditions (pH 7.4, 290 mOsm). The amino acids threonine, asparagine, and L-alanyl-L-1-aminoethylphosphonic acid (LAPA) stabilised sonicated aluminium phosphate. Particle sizes remained stable between 400-600 nm at 37 °C during 106 days. Contrarily, arginine induced strong reaggregation to a particle size larger than 1000 nm. The stability of aluminium phosphate nanoparticles was strongly affected by the pH. Aggregation mainly occurred below pH 7. The adsorption capacity, a potentially relevant parameter for adjuvants, was slightly reduced in the presence of asparagine, when using a model antigen (lysozyme). LAPA, arginine, threonine and aspartic acid reduced protein adsorption significantly. The adjuvant effect of aluminium phosphate nanoparticles was studied by immunisation of mice with diphtheria toxoid adjuvanted with the aluminium phosphate nanoparticles. The presence of LAPA, threonine, aspartic acid or asparagine did not alter diphtheria toxoid-specific antibody or toxin-neutralising antibody titres. Arginine increased diphtheria toxoid-specific antibody titres but not toxin-neutralising antibody titres. In conclusion, aluminium phosphate nanoparticles were stabilised by particular amino acids and induced an adjuvant effect comparable to that of aluminium phosphate microparticles.

Buccal and sublingual vaccine delivery.

Because of their large surface area and immunological competence, mucosal tissues are attractive administration and target sites for vaccination. An important characteristic of mucosal vaccination is its ability to elicit local immune responses, which act against infection at the site of pathogen entry. However, mucosal surfaces are endowed with potent and sophisticated tolerance mechanisms to prevent the immune system from overreacting to the many environmental antigens. Hence, mucosal vaccination may suppress the immune system instead of induce a protective immune response. Therefore, mucosal adjuvants and/or special antigen delivery systems as well as appropriate dosage forms are required in order to develop potent mucosal vaccines. Whereas oral, nasal and pulmonary vaccine delivery strategies have been described extensively, the sublingual and buccal routes have received considerably less attention. In this review, the characteristics of and approaches for sublingual and buccal vaccine delivery are described and compared with other mucosal vaccine delivery sites. We discuss recent progress and highlight promising developments in the search for vaccine formulations, including adjuvants and suitable dosage forms, which are likely critical for designing a successful sublingual or buccal vaccine. Finally, we outline the challenges, hurdles to overcome and formulation issues relevant for sublingual or buccal vaccine delivery.

Multiple binding sites for small-molecule antagonists at the CC chemokine receptor 2.

The chemokine receptor CCR2 is a G protein-coupled receptor that is activated primarily by the endogenous CC chemokine ligand 2 (CCL2). Many different small-molecule antagonists have been developed to inhibit this receptor, as it is involved in a variety of diseases characterized by chronic inflammation. Unfortunately, all these antagonists lack clinical efficacy, and therefore a better understanding of their mechanism of action is warranted. In this study, we examined the pharmacological properties of small-molecule CCR2 antagonists in radioligand binding and functional assays. Six structurally different antagonists were selected for this study, all of which displaced the endogenous agonist (125)I-CCL2 from CCR2 with nanomolar affinity. Two of these antagonists, INCB3344 [N-(2-(((3S,4S)-1-((1r,4S)-4-(benzo[d][1,3]dioxol-5-yl)-4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-4-ethoxypyrrolidin-3-yl)amino)-2-oxoethyl)-3-(trifluoromethyl)benzamide] and CCR2-RA, were radiolabeled to study the binding site in greater detail. We discovered that [(3)H]INCB3344 and [(3)H]CCR2-RA bind to distinct binding sites at CCR2, the latter being the first allosteric radioligand for CCR2. Besides the binding properties of the antagonists, we examined CCR2 inhibition in multiple functional assays, including a novel label-free whole-cell assay. INCB3344 competitively inhibited CCL2-induced G protein activation, whereas CCR2-RA showed a noncompetitive or allosteric mode of inhibition. These findings demonstrated that the CCR2 antagonists examined in this study can be classified into two groups with different binding sites and thereby different modes of inhibition. We have provided further insights in CCR2 antagonism, and these insights are important for the development of novel CCR2 inhibitors.