Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2021;6(7):e141023. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.141023.
Abstract
The increased incidence of whooping cough worldwide suggests that current vaccination against Bordetella pertussis infection has limitations in quality and duration of protection. The resurgence of infection has been linked to the introduction of acellular vaccines (aP), which have an improved safety profile compared with the previously used whole-cell (wP) vaccines. To determine immunological differences between aP and wP priming in infancy, we performed a systems approach of the immune response to booster vaccination. Transcriptomic, proteomic, cytometric, and serologic profiling revealed multiple shared immune responses with different kinetics across cohorts, including an increase of blood monocyte frequencies and strong antigen-specific IgG responses. Additionally, we found a prominent subset of aP-primed individuals (30%) with a strong differential signature, including higher levels of expression for CCL3, NFKBIA, and ICAM1. Contrary to the wP individuals, this subset displayed increased PT-specific IgE responses after boost and higher antigen-specific IgG4 and IgG3 antibodies against FHA and FIM2/3 at baseline and after boost. Overall, the results show that, while broad immune response patterns to Tdap boost overlap between aP- and wP-primed individuals, a subset of aP-primed individuals present a divergent response. These findings provide candidate targets to study the causes and correlates of waning immunity after aP vaccination.
Authors
Ricardo da Silva Antunes, Ferran Soldevila, Mikhail Pomaznoy, Mariana Babor, Jason Bennett, Yuan Tian, Natalie Khalil, Yu Qian, Aishwarya Mandava, Richard H. Scheuermann, Mario Cortese, Bali Pulendran, Christopher D. Petro, Adrienne P. Gilkes, Lisa A. Purcell, Alessandro Sette, Bjoern Peters
Usage data is cumulative from May 2022 through May 2023.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 2,014 | 220 |
| 174 | 68 | |
| Figure | 465 | 3 |
| Supplemental data | 332 | 30 |
| Citation downloads | 62 | 0 |
| Totals | 3,047 | 321 |
| Total Views | 3,368 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
