Search

Summary: The receptor-binding domain (RBD) of influenza virus hemagglutinin (HA) elicits potently neutralizing yet mostly strain-specific antibodies. Here, we evaluate the ability of several immunofocusing techniques to enhance the functional breadth of vaccine-elicited immune responses against the HA RBD. We present a series of “trihead” nanoparticle immunogens that display native-like closed trimeric RBDs from the HAs of several H1N1 influenza viruses. The series includes hyperglycosylated and hypervariable variants that incorporate natural and designed sequence diversity at key positions in the receptor-binding site periphery. Nanoparticle immunogens displaying triheads or hyperglycosylated triheads elicit higher hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) and neutralizing activity than the corresponding immunogens lacking either trimer-stabilizing mutations or hyperglycosylation. By contrast, mosaic nanoparticle display and antigen hypervariation do not significantly alter the magnitude or breadth of vaccine-elicited antibodies. Our results yield important insights into antibody responses against the RBD and the ability of several structure-based immunofocusing techniques to influence vaccine-elicited antibody responses.

Summary: Immunogen design approaches aim to control the specificity and quality of antibody responses elicited by next-generation vaccines. Here, we use computational protein design to generate a nanoparticle vaccine platform based on the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of influenza hemagglutinin (HA) that enables precise control of antigen conformation and spacing. HA RBDs are presented as either monomers or native-like closed trimers that are connected to the underlying nanoparticle by a rigid linker that is modularly extended to precisely control antigen spacing. Nanoparticle immunogens with decreased spacing between trimeric RBDs elicit antibodies with improved hemagglutination inhibition and neutralization potency as well as binding breadth across diverse H1 HAs. Our “trihead” nanoparticle immunogen platform provides insights into anti-HA immunity, establishes antigen spacing as an important parameter in structure-based vaccine design, and embodies several design features that could be used in next-generation vaccines against influenza and other viruses.

Summary: The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants poses continuous challenges in combating the virus. Here, we describe vaccination strategies to broaden SARS-CoV-2 and sarbecovirus immunity by combining spike proteins based on different viruses or viral strains displayed on two-component protein nanoparticles. First, we combined spike proteins based on ancestral and Beta SARS-CoV-2 strains to broaden SARS-CoV-2 immune responses. Inclusion of Beta spike improved neutralizing antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 Beta, Gamma, and Omicron BA.1 and BA.4/5. A third vaccination with ancestral SARS-CoV-2 spike also improved cross-neutralizing antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants, in particular against the Omicron sublineages. Second, we combined SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins to broaden sarbecovirus immune responses. Adding SARS-CoV spike to a SARS-CoV-2 spike vaccine improved neutralizing responses against SARS-CoV and SARS-like bat sarbecoviruses SHC014 and WIV1. These results should inform the development of broadly active SARS-CoV-2 and pan-sarbecovirus vaccines and highlight the versatility of two-component nanoparticles for displaying diverse antigens.

Summary: Background: Vaccination has helped to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic. Ten traditional and novel vaccines have been listed by the World Health Organization for emergency use. Additional alternative approaches may better address ongoing vaccination globally, where there remains an inequity in vaccine distribution. GBP510 is a recombinant protein vaccine, which consists of self-assembling, two-component nanoparticles, displaying the receptor-binding domain (RBD) in a highly immunogenic array. Methods: This randomised, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded phase 1/2 study was conducted to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of GBP510 (2-doses at a 28-day interval) adjuvanted with or without AS03 in adults aged 19–85 years at 14 hospital sites in Korea. This study was consisted of two stages (stage I, healthy adults aged 19–55 years; stage II, 240 healthy adults aged 19–85 years). Healthy participants who did not previously receive any vaccine within 4 weeks (2 weeks for flu vaccine) prior to the study, no history of COVID-19 vaccination/medication, and were naïve to SARS-CoV-2 infection at screening were eligible for the study enrollment. Participants were block-randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive 2 doses of 10 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 (group 1), 10 µg unadjuvanted GBP510 (group 2) or placebo intramuscularly in stage I, while they were block-randomized in a 2:2:1:1 ratio to receive 10 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 (group 1), 25 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 (group 3), 25 µg unadjuvanted GBP510 (group 4) or placebo in stage II. The primary safety outcomes were solicited and unsolicited adverse events, while primary immunogenicity outcomes included anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG antibodies; neutralizing antibody responses; and T-cell immune responses. Safety assessment included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study intervention (safety set). Immunogenicity assessment included all participants who completed the vaccination schedule and had valid immunogenicity assessment results without any major protocol deviations (per-protocol set). This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04750343). Findings: Of 328 participants who were enrolled between February 1 and May 28, 2021, 327 participants received at least 1 dose of vaccine. Each received either 10 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 (Group 1, n = 101), 10 µg unadjuvanted GBP510 (Group 2, n = 10), 25 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 (Group 3, n = 104), 25 µg unadjuvanted GBP510 (Group 4, n = 51), or placebo (n = 61). Higher reactogenicity was observed in the GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 groups compared to the non-adjuvanted and placebo groups. The most frequently reported solicited local adverse event (AE) was injection site pain after any vaccination: (88·1% in group 1; 50·0% in group 2; 92·3% in group 3; 66·7% in group 4). Fatigue and myalgia were two most frequently reported systemic AEs and more frequently reported in GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 recipients (79·2% and 78·2% in group 1; 75·0% and 79·8% in group 3, respectively) than in the unadjuvanted vaccine recipients (40·0% and of 40·0% in group 2; 60·8% and 47·1% in group 4) after any vaccination. Reactogenicity was higher post-dose 2 compared to post-dose 1, particularly for systemic AEs. The geometric mean concentrations of anti-SARS-CoV-2-RBD IgG antibody reached 2163·6/2599·2 BAU/mL in GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 recipients (10 µg/25 µg) by 14 days after the second dose. Two-dose vaccination of 10 µg or 25 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 induced high titres of neutralizing antibody via pseudovirus (1369·0/1431·5 IU/mL) and wild-type virus (949·8/861·0 IU/mL) assay. Interpretation: GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 was well tolerated and highly immunogenic. These results support further development of the vaccine candidate, which is currently being evaluated in Phase 3. Funding: This work was supported, in whole or in part, by funding from CEPI and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Investment ID OPP1148601. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supported this project for the generation of IND-enabling data and CEPI supported this clinical study.

Background: The time of day that people exercise could have an influence on the efficacy of exercise for weight loss, via differences in adherence and/or physiological adaptations. However, there is currently no evidence to support an optimal time of day for exercise to maximise efficacy. Purpose: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of prescribed morning and evening exercise. Methods: Twenty inactive, overweight adults aged 18–60 years were recruited for a 12-week intervention and randomized to one of three groups using a 2:2:1 random allocation ratio: i) morning exercise (AM; n = 9); ii) evening exercise (PM; n = 7); or iii) waitlist control (CON; n = 4). Exercise groups were prescribed self-paced walking or running on a treadmill to achieve a weekly total of 250 min. Feasibility and acceptability data were collected, and physiological and behavioural outcomes associated with energy balance were measured at baseline, mid- and post-intervention. Results: Attrition was low (n = 2 dropped out), with high measurement completion rates (>80%). The intervention groups had high adherence rates to exercise sessions (94% and 87% for the AM and PM groups, respectively). No adverse events resulting from the intervention were reported. Both intervention groups displayed improvements to their cardiometabolic risk profile; cardiorespiratory fitness improved by 5.2 ± 4.7, and 4.6 ± 4.5 mL kg−1.min−1 and body fat percentage reduced by 1.2 ± 1.4, and −0.6 ± 1.2% for AM and PM groups, respectively. Conclusion: This feasibility study provides evidence that morning and evening exercise interventions are feasible, and also provides justification for a large-scale randomized controlled trial. Trial registration: This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000457448p, 7/4/2016). Keywords: Exercise, Time of day, Feasibility, Randomized controlled trial, Energy balance