Identification of potential biomarkers of vaccine inflammation in mice

  1. Paul F McKay  Is a corresponding author
  2. Deniz Cizmeci
  3. Yoann Aldon
  4. Jeroen Maertzdorf
  5. January Weiner
  6. Stefan HE Kaufmann
  7. David JM Lewis
  8. Robert A van den Berg
  9. Giuseppe Del Giudice
  10. Robin J Shattock  Is a corresponding author
  1. Imperial College London, United Kingdom
  2. Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology, Germany
  3. Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, United Kingdom
  4. GlaxoSmithKline, United States
  5. GlaxoSmithKline, Italy

Abstract

Systems vaccinology approaches have been used to successfully define early signatures of the vaccine-induced immune response. However, the possibility that transcriptomics can also identify a correlate/surrogate for vaccine inflammation has not been fully explored. We have compared four licensed vaccines with known safety profiles, and three agonists of TLRs with known inflammatory potential, to elucidate the transcriptomic profile of an acceptable response to vaccination versus an inflammatory reaction. In mice, we looked at the transcriptomic changes in muscle at the injection site, the lymph node that drained the muscle and the PBMC isolated from the circulating blood from 4 hours and over the period of one week. A detailed examination and comparative analysis of these transcriptomes revealed a set of novel biomarkers reflective of inflammation after vaccination. These biomarkers are readily measurable in the peripheral blood, providing useful surrogates of inflammation, as a way to select candidates with acceptable safety profiles.

Data availability

Complete microarray data was deposited in NCBI's Gene Expression Omnibus and is accessible through GEO accession number GSE120661.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Paul F McKay

    Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    p.mckay@imperial.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5195-6254
  2. Deniz Cizmeci

    Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3231-7726
  3. Yoann Aldon

    Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Jeroen Maertzdorf

    Department of Immunology, Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. January Weiner

    Department of Immunology, Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1438-7819
  6. Stefan HE Kaufmann

    Department of Immunology, Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9866-8268
  7. David JM Lewis

    The NIHR Imperial Clinical Research Facility, Imperial Centre for Translational and Experimental Medicine, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Robert A van den Berg

    GlaxoSmithKline, Rockville, United States
    Competing interests
    Robert A van den Berg, is an employee of the GSK group of companies. Reports ownership of shares and/or restricted shares in GSK.
  9. Giuseppe Del Giudice

    GlaxoSmithKline, Siena, Italy
    Competing interests
    Giuseppe Del Giudice, is an employee of the GSK group of companies. Reports ownership of shares and/or restricted shares in GSK.
  10. Robin J Shattock

    Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    r.shattock@imperial.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Funding

European Union Seventh Framework Programme (115308-2)

  • Paul F McKay
  • Deniz Cizmeci
  • Yoann Aldon
  • Jeroen Maertzdorf
  • January Weiner
  • Stefan HE Kaufmann
  • David JM Lewis
  • Robert A van den Berg
  • Guiseppe Del Giudice
  • Robin J Shattock

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: The animal studies were approved by the Ethical Review Board of Imperial College London where the experiments were carried out and work was performed in strict compliance with project and personal animal experimentation licences granted by the UK government in accordance with the Animals in Scientific Procedures Act (1986)- PPL 70-7457 Protocol #1. Animals received minimal handling and their physical condition was monitored at least twice daily. All procedures were performed under isoflurane anaesthesia when appropriate, and all efforts were made to minimise suffering. There was a detailed protocol in place, as per requirement of the humane endpoints described in the animal licence, for early euthanasia in the event of onset of illness or significant deterioration in condition. At the end of the experiment all animals were culled using a schedule 1 method and death confirmed before necropsy. Food and water were supplied ad libitum.

Copyright

© 2019, McKay et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,441
    views
  • 446
    downloads
  • 28
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Paul F McKay
  2. Deniz Cizmeci
  3. Yoann Aldon
  4. Jeroen Maertzdorf
  5. January Weiner
  6. Stefan HE Kaufmann
  7. David JM Lewis
  8. Robert A van den Berg
  9. Giuseppe Del Giudice
  10. Robin J Shattock
(2019)
Identification of potential biomarkers of vaccine inflammation in mice
eLife 8:e46149.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46149

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46149

Further reading

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    Javier Ruiz-Navarro, Sara Fernández-Hermira ... Manuel Izquierdo Pastor
    Research Article

    We analyzed here how formin-like 1 β (FMNL1β), an actin cytoskeleton-regulatory protein, regulates microtubule-organizing center (MTOC) and multivesicular bodies (MVB) polarization and exosome secretion at an immune synapse (IS) model in a phosphorylation-dependent manner. IS formation was associated with transient recruitment of FMNL1β to the IS, which was independent of protein kinase C δ (PKCδ). Simultaneous RNA interference of all FMNL1 isoforms prevented MTOC/MVB polarization and exosome secretion, which were restored by FMNL1βWT expression. However, expression of the non-phosphorylatable mutant FMNL1βS1086A did not restore neither MTOC/MVB polarization nor exosome secretion to control levels, supporting the crucial role of S1086 phosphorylation in MTOC/MVB polarization and exosome secretion. In contrast, the phosphomimetic mutant, FMNL1βS1086D, restored MTOC/MVB polarization and exosome secretion. Conversely, FMNL1βS1086D mutant did not recover the deficient MTOC/MVB polarization occurring in PKCδ-interfered clones, indicating that S1086 FMNL1β phosphorylation alone is not sufficient for MTOC/MVB polarization and exosome secretion. FMNL1 interference inhibited the depletion of F-actin at the central region of the immune synapse (cIS), which is necessary for MTOC/MVB polarization. FMNL1βWT and FMNL1βS1086D, but not FMNL1βS1086A expression, restored F-actin depletion at the cIS. Thus, actin cytoskeleton reorganization at the IS underlies the effects of all these FMNL1β variants on polarized secretory traffic. FMNL1 was found in the IS made by primary T lymphocytes, both in T cell receptor (TCR) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-evoked synapses. Taken together, these results point out a crucial role of S1086 phosphorylation in FMNL1β activation, leading to cortical actin reorganization and subsequent control of MTOC/MVB polarization and exosome secretion.

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Bin Li, Jin Zhang ... Chao Wu
    Research Article

    Adjuvants can affect APCs function and boost adaptive immune responses post-vaccination. However, whether they modulate the specificity of immune responses, particularly immunodominant epitope responses, and the mechanisms of regulating antigen processing and presentation remain poorly defined. Here, using overlapping synthetic peptides, we screened the dominant epitopes of Th1 responses in mice post-vaccination with different adjuvants and found that the adjuvants altered the antigen-specific CD4+ T-cell immunodominant epitope hierarchy. MHC-II immunopeptidomes demonstrated that the peptide repertoires presented by APCs were significantly altered by the adjuvants. Unexpectedly, no novel peptide presentation was detected after adjuvant treatment, whereas peptides with high binding stability for MHC-II presented in the control group were missing after adjuvant stimulation, particularly in the MPLA- and CpG-stimulated groups. The low-stability peptide present in the adjuvant groups effectively elicited robust T-cell responses and formed immune memory. Collectively, our results suggest that adjuvants (MPLA and CpG) inhibit high-stability peptide presentation instead of revealing cryptic epitopes, which may alter the specificity of CD4+ T-cell-dominant epitope responses. The capacity of adjuvants to modify peptide–MHC (pMHC) stability and antigen-specific T-cell immunodominant epitope responses has fundamental implications for the selection of suitable adjuvants in the vaccine design process and epitope vaccine development.