Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The adjuvant activity of a single highly purified saponin from the soap bark tree Quillaja saponaria was evaluated by using it as a component in an experimental vaccine containing rHIV-1 envelope protein (HIV-1 160D) adsorbed to alum. BALB/c mice immunized with experimental vaccine formulations containing the saponin adjuvant QS-21 produced significantly higher titers of antibodies than mice vaccinated with only the alum-adsorbed HIV-1 160D. Potent amnestic antibody responses to HIV-1 viral proteins were also induced. Ag-specific proliferative responses to recombinant proteins and to three variants of HIV-1 were significantly increased using QS-21 as an adjuvant. Alum-adsorbed HIV-1 160D failed to induce measurable proliferative responses to inactivated HIV-1 viruses, but group-specific proliferative responses were raised when the QS-21 adjuvant was used in the vaccine formulation. MHC class I restricted CTL specific for the immunodominant V-3 loop were induced but only when the QS-21 adjuvant was included in the vaccine formulation. The production of serine esterase by Ag-activated splenic mononuclear cells, indicating the maturation of precursor CTL, was used as a secondary measure of CTL activity, and this response was also increased. The specificity of antibody responses was not significantly broadened using QS-21; the adjuvant increased the immune recognition of epitopes throughout the HIV-1 glycoprotein 160. However, the specificity of the proliferation and serine esterase responses was broadened, suggesting that the QS-21 augmented cell-mediated immune responses specific for epitopes outside of the V-3 loop. Additionally, the QS-21 adjuvant appeared to induce recognition of weakly immunogenic epitopes that were not recognized using only alum-adsorbed HIV-1 160D. The ability of QS-21 to augment both antibody and cell-mediated immune responses suggests that this adjuvant could be a valuable component in subunit vaccines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: