Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Reviews
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Top read articles
  • JCI This Month
    • Current issue
    • Past issues

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Concise Communication
  • Editorials
  • Viewpoint
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection by a mucosal vaccine in rhesus macaques
Yongjun Sui, … , Lai-Xi Wang, Jay A. Berzofsky
Yongjun Sui, … , Lai-Xi Wang, Jay A. Berzofsky
Published April 28, 2021
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2021;6(10):e148494. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.148494.
View: Text | PDF
Research Article COVID-19 Vaccines

Protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection by a mucosal vaccine in rhesus macaques

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are urgently needed. Although most vaccine strategies have focused on systemic immunization, here we compared the protective efficacy of 2 adjuvanted subunit vaccines with spike protein S1: an intramuscularly primed/boosted vaccine and an intramuscularly primed/intranasally boosted mucosal vaccine in rhesus macaques. The intramuscular-alum–only vaccine induced robust binding and neutralizing antibody and persistent cellular immunity systemically and mucosally, whereas intranasal boosting with nanoparticles, including IL-15 and TLR agonists, elicited weaker T cell and Ab responses but higher dimeric IgA and IFN-α. Nevertheless, following SARS-CoV-2 challenge, neither group showed detectable subgenomic RNA in upper or lower respiratory tracts versus naive controls, indicating full protection against viral replication. Although mucosal and systemic protective mechanisms may differ, results demonstrate both vaccines can protect against respiratory SARS-CoV-2 exposure. In summary, we have demonstrated that the mucosal vaccine was safe after multiple doses and cleared the input virus more efficiently in the nasal cavity and thus may act as a potent complementary reinforcing boost for conventional systemic vaccines to provide overall better protection.

Authors

Yongjun Sui, Jianping Li, Roushu Zhang, Sunaina Kiran Prabhu, Hanne Andersen, David Venzon, Anthony Cook, Renita Brown, Elyse Teow, Jason Velasco, Jack Greenhouse, Tammy Putman-Taylor, Tracey-Ann Campbell, Laurent Pessaint, Ian N. Moore, Laurel Lagenaur, Jim Talton, Matthew W. Breed, Josh Kramer, Kevin W. Bock, Mahnaz Minai, Bianca M. Nagata, Mark G. Lewis, Lai-Xi Wang, Jay A. Berzofsky

×

Figure 6

Histopathological analysis and viral antigen detection in the lung.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
Histopathological analysis and viral antigen detection in the lung.
Seve...
Seven or 10 days after challenge, lungs were harvested, and multiple sections of lung were evaluated histologically and immunohistochemically for the presence of SARS-CoV-2–related inflammation and SARS-CoV-2 virus antigen. Representative images were from lungs harvested day 7 from 1 animal in the naive group (A) and 1 animal in vaccinated group 1 (B). Each animal was blindly scored by a pathologist based on the degree of inflammation in the lung. In the box and whiskers plot, the median, other quartiles, and minimum and maximum are shown. Mann-Whitney U tests corrected for multiple comparisons by the Hochberg method were used to compare the lung inflammation between SARS-CoV-2 naive control and vaccination groups (C). Scale bars: 200 μm (original magnification, ×4) and 100 μm (original magnification, ×10). n = 6 for groups 1 and 2 and naive group.

Copyright © 2022 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts