Search

BACKGROUND. Mosaic and consensus HIV-1 immunogens provide two distinct approaches to elicit greater breadth of coverage against globally circulating HIV-1 and have shown improved immunologic breadth in nonhuman primate models. METHODS. This double-blind randomized trial enrolled 105 healthy HIV-uninfected adults who received 3 doses of either a trivalent global mosaic, a group M consensus (CON-S), or a natural clade B (Nat-B) gp160 env DNA vaccine followed by 2 doses of a heterologous modified vaccinia Ankara-vectored HIV-1 vaccine or placebo. We performed prespecified blinded immunogenicity analyses at day 70 and day 238 after the first immunization. T cell responses to vaccine antigens and 5 heterologous Env variants were fully mapped. RESULTS. Env-specific [CD4.sup.+] T cell responses were induced in 71% of the mosaic vaccine recipients versus 48% of the CON-S recipients and 48% of the natural Env recipients. The mean number of T cell epitopes recognized was 2.5 (95% CI, 1.2-4.2) for mosaic recipients, 1.6 (95% CI, 0.82-2.6) for CON-S recipients, and 1.1 (95% CI, 0.62-1.71) for Nat-B recipients. Mean breadth was significantly greater in the mosaic group than in the Nat-B group using overall (P = 0.014), prime-matched (P = 0.002), heterologous (P = 0.046), and boost-matched (P = 0.009) measures. Overall T cell breadth was largely due to Env-specific [CD4.sup.+] T cell responses. CONCLUSION. Priming with a mosaic antigen significantly increased the number of epitopes recognized by Env-specific T cells and enabled more, albeit still limited, cross-recognition of heterologous variants. Mosaic and consensus immunogens are promising approaches to address global diversity of HIV-1. TRIAL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02296541. FUNDING. US NIH grants UM1 AI068614, UM1 AI068635, UM1 AI068618, UM1 AI069412, UL1 RR025758, P30 AI064518, UM1 AI100645, and UM1 AI144371, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation grant OPP52282., Introduction The tremendous global genetic diversity of HIV-1 poses a formidable challenge in the development of a globally effective HIV-1 vaccine (1, 2). Several vaccine concepts have completed efficacy trials [...]

Abstract Background There are currently many different methods for processing and summarizing probe-level data from Affymetrix oligonucleotide arrays. It is of great interest to validate these methods and identify those that are most effective. There is no single best way to do this validation, and a variety of approaches is needed. Moreover, gene expression data are collected to answer a variety of scientific questions, and the same method may not be best for all questions. Only a handful of validation studies have been done so far, most of which rely on spike-in datasets and focus on the question of detecting differential expression. Here we seek methods that excel at estimating relative expression. We evaluate methods by identifying those that give the strongest linear association between expression measurements by array and the "gold-standard" assay. Quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) is generally considered the "gold-standard" assay for measuring gene expression by biologists and is often used to confirm findings from microarray data. Here we use qRT-PCR measurements to validate methods for the components of processing oligo array data: background adjustment, normalization, mismatch adjustment, and probeset summary. An advantage of our approach over spike-in studies is that methods are validated on a real dataset that was collected to address a scientific question. Results We initially identify three of six popular methods that consistently produced the best agreement between oligo array and RT-PCR data for medium- and high-intensity genes. The three methods are generally known as MAS5, gcRMA, and the dChip mismatch mode. For medium- and high-intensity genes, we identified use of data from mismatch probes (as in MAS5 and dChip mismatch) and a sequence-based method of background adjustment (as in gcRMA) as the most important factors in methods' performances. However, we found poor reliability for methods using mismatch probes for low-intensity genes, which is in agreement with previous studies. Conclusion We advocate use of sequence-based background adjustment in lieu of mismatch adjustment to achieve the best results across the intensity spectrum. No method of normalization or probeset summary showed any consistent advantages.