Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5610_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
482 C. Ginn et al.
https://t.me/med1917
Piccica M, Lagi F, Bartoloni A, Zammarchi L. Efficacy and safety of pentamidine isethionate for
tegumentary and visceral human leishmaniasis: a systematic review. J Travel Med. 2021;28(6)
Pitman SK, Drew RH, Perfect JR. Addressing current medical needs in invasive fungal infection
prevention and treatment with new antifungal agents, strategies and formulations. Expert Opin
Emerg Drugs. 2011;16(3):559–86.
Ponte-Sucre A, Gamarro F, Dujardin JC, Barrett MP, López-Vélez R, García-Hernández R, et al.
Drug resistance and treatment failure in leishmaniasis: a 21st century challenge. PLoS Negl
Trop Dis. 2017;11(12):e0006052.
Prajapati VK, Awasthi K, Gautam S, Yadav TP, Rai M, Srivastava ON, et al. Targeted killing of
Leishmania donovani in vivo and in vitro with amphotericin B attached to functionalized carbon
nanotubes. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(4):874–9.
Prajna NV, Krishnan T, Mascarenhas J, Rajaraman R, Prajna L, Srinivasan M, et al. The mycotic
ulcer treatment trial: a randomized trial comparing natamycin vs voriconazole. JAMA
Ophthalmol. 2013;131(4):422–9.
Qi H, Shan P, Wang Y, Li P, Wang K, Yang L. Nanomedicines for the efficient treatment of
intracellular bacteria: the “ART” principle. Front Chem. 2021;9:775682.
Qiu S, Zhao GQ, Lin J, Wang X, Hu LT, Du ZD, et al. Natamycin in the treatment of fungal
keratitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Ophthalmol. 2015;8(3):597–602.
Queiroz-Telles F, Berezin E, Leverger G, Freire A, van der Vyver A, Chotpitayasunondh T, et al.
Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for pediatric patients with invasive candidiasis:
substudy of a randomized double-blind trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2008;27(9):820–6.
Rai S, Singh N, Bhattacharya S. Concepts on smart nano-based drug delivery system. Recent Pat
Nanotechnol. 2022;16(1):67 –89.
Raj N, Vanathi M, Ahmed NH, Gupta N, Lomi N, Tandon R. Recent perspectives in the
management of fungal keratitis. J Fungi (Basel). 2021;7(11)
Ramana LN, Anand AR, Sethuraman S, Krishnan UM. Targeting strategies for delivery of anti-HIV
drugs. J Control Release. 2014;192:271–83.
Ramos H, Valdivieso E, Gamargo M, Dagger F, Cohen BE. Amphotericin B kills unicellular
leishmanias by forming aqueous pores permeable to small cations and anions. J Membr Biol.
1996;152(1):65–75.
Rathore A, Jain A, Gulbake A, Shilpi S, Khare P, Jain A, et al. Mannosylated liposomes bearing
amphotericin B for effective management of visceral Leishmaniasis. J Liposome Res. 2011;21
(4):333–40.
Reis LES, Fortes de Brito RC, Cardoso JMO, Mathias FAS, Aguiar Soares RDO, Carneiro CM,
et al. Mixed formulation of conventional and pegylated meglumine antimoniate-containing
liposomes reduces inflammatory process and parasite burden in Leishmania infantum-infected
BALB/c mice. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(11)
Reithinger R, Dujardin JC, Louzir H, Pirmez C, Alexander B, Brooker S. Cutaneous leishmaniasis.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2007;7(9):581–96.
Rex JH, Bennett JE, Sugar AM, Pappas PG, van der Horst CM, Edwards JE, et al. A randomized
trial comparing fluconazole with amphotericin B for the treatment of candidemia in patients
without neutropenia. Candidemia Study Group and the National Institute. N Engl J Med.
1994;331(20):1325–30.
Rex JH, Pappas PG, Karchmer AW, Sobel J, Edwards JE, Hadley S, et al. A randomized and
blinded multicenter trial of high-dose fluconazole plus placebo versus fluconazole plus
amphotericin B as therapy for candidemia and its consequences in nonneutropenic subjects.
Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36(10):1221–8.
Roatt BM, de Oliveira Cardoso JM, De Brito RCF, Coura-Vital W, de Oliveira Aguiar-Soares RD,
Reis AB. Recent advances and new strategies on leishmaniasis treatment. Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol. 2020;104(21):8965– 77.
Rode A, Sharma S, Mishra DK. Carbon nanotubes: classification, method of preparation and
pharmaceutical application. Curr Drug Deliv. 2018;15(5):620–9.
17 Anti-infective Drug Nanosystems 483
https://t.me/med1917
Rodrigo C, Weeratunga P, Fernando SD, Rajapakse S. Amphotericin B for treatment of visceral
leishmaniasis: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective comparative clinical studies
including dose-ranging studies. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018;24(6):591–8.
Rodrigues ML, Albuquerque PC. Searching for a change: the need for increased support for public
health and research on fungal diseases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(6):e0006479.
Rodrigues CF, Gonçalves B, Rodrigues ME, Silva S, Azeredo J, Henriques M. The effectiveness of
voriconazole in therapy of Candida glabrata’s biofilms oral infections and its influence on the
matrix composition and gene expression. Mycopathologia. 2017;182(7–8):653–64.
Romanowski EG, Romanowski JE, Shanks RMQ, Yates KA, Mammen A, Dhaliwal DK, et al.
Topical vancomycin 5% is more efficacious than 2.5% and 1.25% for reducing viable
methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in infectious keratitis. Cornea. 2020;39(2):250–3.
Rosales C, Uribe-Querol E. Phagocytosis: a fundamental process in immunity. Biomed Res Int.
2017;2017:9042851.
Sadlova J, Myskova J, Lestinova T, Votypka J, Yeo M, Volf P. Leishmania donovani development
in Phlebotomus argentipes: comparison of promastigote- and amastigote-initiated infections.
Parasitology. 2017;144(4):403–10.
Saleem K, Khursheed Z, Hano C, Anjum I, Anjum S. Applications of nanomaterials in leishman-
iasis: a focus on recent advances and challenges. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2019;9(12)
Sánchez A, Mejía SP, Orozco J. Recent advances in polymeric nanoparticle-encapsulated drugs
against intracellular infections. Molecules. 2020;25(16)
Sandhya M, Aparna V, Suresh Maneesha K, Raja B, Jayakumar R, Sathianarayanan
S. Amphotericin B loaded sulfonated chitosan nanoparticles for targeting macrophages to
treat intracellular Candida glabrata infections. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018;110:133–9.
Shang L, Nienhaus K, Nienhaus GU. Engineered nanoparticles interacting with cells: size matters. J
Nanobiotechnol. 2014;12:5.
Sharma A, Taniguchi J. Review: emerging strategies for antimicrobial drug delivery to the ocular
surface: implications for infectious keratitis. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(4):670–9.
Sharma N, Bagga B, Singhal D, Nagpal R, Kate A, Saluja G, et al. Fungal keratitis: a review of
clinical presentations, treatment strategies and outcomes. Ocul Surf. 2022;24:22–30.
Shi L, Li Z, Liang Z, Zhang J, Liu R, Chu D, et al. A dual-functional chitosan derivative platform
for fungal keratitis. Carbohydr Polym. 2022;275:118762.
Soares S, Sousa J, Pais A, Vitorino C. Nanomedicine: principles, properties, and regulatory issues.
Front Chem. 2018;6:360.
Soleimani M, Tabatabaei SA, Masoumi A, Mirshahi R, Ghahvechian H, Tayebi F, et al. Infectious
keratitis: trends in microbiological and antibiotic sensitivity patterns. Eye (Lond). 2021;35(11):
3110–5.
Stone NR, Bicanic T, Salim R, Hope W. Liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome(®)): a review of
the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, clinical experience and future directions. Drugs.
2016;76(4):485–500.
Sudhandiran G, Shaha C. Antimonial-induced increase in intracellular Ca2+ through non-selective
cation channels in the host and the parasite is responsible for apoptosis of intracellular Leish-
mania donovani amastigotes. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(27):25120–32.
Sundar S, Chakravarty J. Liposomal amphotericin B and leishmaniasis: dose and response. J Glob
Infect Dis. 2010;2(2):159–66.
Sundar S, Singh A. Chemotherapeutics of visceral leishmaniasis: present and future developments.
Parasitology. 2018;145(4):481–9.
Sundar S, Jha TK, Thakur CP, Sinha PK, Bhattacharya SK. Injectable paromomycin for visceral
leishmaniasis in India. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(25):2571–81.
Sundar S, Sinha PK, Rai M, Verma DK, Nawin K, Alam S, et al. Comparison of short-course
multidrug treatment with standard therapy for visceral leishmaniasis in India: an open-label,
non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9764):477–86.
484 C. Ginn et al.
https://t.me/med1917
Sundar S, Agrawal N, Singh B. Exploiting knowledge on pharmacodynamics-pharmacokinetics for
accelerated anti-leishmanial drug discovery/development. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol.
2019;15(7):595–612.
Surve DH, Jirwankar YB, Dighe VD, Jindal AB. Long-acting efavirenz and HIV-1 fusion inhibitor
peptide co-loaded polymer-lipid hybrid nanoparticles: statistical optimization, cellular uptake,
and in vivo biodistribution. Mol Pharm. 2020;17(10):3990–4003.
Tamiru A, Mohammed R, Atnafu S, Medhin G, Hailu A. Efficacy and safety of a combined
treatment of sodium stibogluconate at 20mg/kg/day with upper maximum daily dose limit of
850mg and Paromomycin 15mg/kg/day in HIV-negative visceral leishmaniasis patients. A
retrospective study, northwest Ethiopia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(8):e0009713.
Tang X, Zhu H, Sun L, Hou W, Cai S, Zhang R, et al. Enhanced antifungal effects of amphotericin
B-TPGS-b-(PCL-ran-PGA) nanoparticles in vitro and in vivo. Int J Nanomedicine. 2014;9:
5403–13.
Thomas PA, Kaliamurthy J. Mycotic keratitis: epidemiolo gy, diagnosis and management. Clin
Microbiol Infect. 2013;19(3):210–20.
Uliana SRB, Trinconi CT, Coelho AC. Chemotherapy of leishmaniasis: present challenges. Para-
sitology. 2018;145(4):464–80.
Ustündağ-Okur N, Gökçe EH, BozbıyıkD, Eğrilmez S, Ozer O, Ertan G. Preparation and in vitro-
in vivo evaluation of ofloxacin loaded ophthalmic nano structured lipid carriers modified with
chitosan oligosaccharide lactate for the treatment of bacterial keratitis. Eur J Pharm Sci.
2014;63:204–15.
Valle IV, Machado ME, Araújo C, da Cunha-Junior EF, da Silva PJ, Torres-Santos EC, et al. Oral
pentamidine-loaded poly(d,l-lactic-co-glycolic) acid nanoparticles: an alternative approach for
leishmaniasis treatment. Nanotechnology. 2019;30(45):455102.
van Griensven J, Diro E. Visceral leishmaniasis. Infect Dis Clin N Am. 2012;26(2):309–22.
Veloso D, Benedetti N, Ávila RI, Bastos TSA, Silva TC, Silva MRR, et al. Intravenous delivery of a
liposomal formulation of voriconazole improves drug pharmacokinetics, tissue distribution, and
enhances antifungal activity. Drug Deliv. 2018;25(1):1585–94.
Vigna E, De Vivo A, Gentile M, Morelli R, Lucia E, Mazzone C, et al. Liposomal amphotericin B in
the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis in immunocompromised patients. Transpl Infect Dis.
2010;12(5):428–31.
von Mach MA, Burhenne J, Weilemann LS. Accumulation of the solvent vehicle sulphobutylether
beta cyclodextrin sodium in critically ill patients treated with intravenous voriconazole under
renal replacement therapy. BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2006;6:6.
Walker L, Sood P, Lenardon MD, Milne G, Olson J, Jensen G, et al. The viscoelastic properties of
the fungal cell wall allow traffic of AmBisome as intact liposome vesicles. MBio. 2018;9(1)
WHO. Control of the leishmaniasis: report of a meeting of the World Health Organization Expert
Committee on the Control of Leishmaniases. Geneva: World Health Organisation Technical
Report Series; 2010.
Winston DJ, Maziarz RT, Chandrasekar PH, Lazarus HM, Goldman M, Blumer JL, et al. Intrave-
nous and oral itraconazole versus intravenous and oral fluconazole for long-term antifungal
prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant recipients. A multicenter, random-
ized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(9):705–13.
Wyllie S, Cunningham ML, Fairlamb AH. Dual action of antimonial drugs on thiol redox metab-
olism in the human pathogen Leishmania donovani. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(38):39925–32.
Yadav D, Dewangan HK. PEGYLATION: an important approach for novel drug delivery system. J
Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2021;32(2):266–80.
Yu Y, Peng L, Liao G, Chen Z, Li C. Noncovalent complexation of amphotericin B with poly
(β-amino ester) derivates for treatment of C. Neoformans Infect Polym (Basel). 2019;11(2)
Zilberstein D. Lysosome sensing is a key mechanism in leishmania intracellular development. Front
Microbiol. 2021;12:667807.
Chapter 18
https://t.me/med1917
Use of Nanotechnology in the Formulation
of Vaccines
Yvonne Perrie and Cameron Webb
18.1 Immunity and Vaccination
Infectious diseases remain among the leading causes of death worldwide and
vaccination offers one of the most effective strategies in global healthcare to address
this. Vaccines harness the capacity of the human immune system to recognise and
remember encounters with pathogen antigens. Despite rapid developments in vaccine technology, there is an urgent need for more vaccines targeting challenging
pathogens like Mycobacterium tuberculosis (the causative agent of tuberculosis).
Moreover, it is essential to address antigenically diverse pathogens such as HIV,
control outbreaks that pose a global health security threat (such as Ebola), and
explore strategies to reinvigorate immune responses within the ageing immune
system.
Nanoparticles have emerged as pivotal components in vaccine development,
offering significant contributions to various vaccine platforms, including mRNA
vaccines. Nanoparticles offer unique properties that enable them to play a crucial
role in enhancing the effectiveness and efficacy of various vaccine formulations.
Given their versatility, nanoparticles can encapsulate and protect vaccine components, whether they are viral proteins, bacterial fragments, nucleic acids, or other
immunogenic components. This protection shields antigens from degradation and
facilitates appropriate cell delivery, thereby driving potency. Additionally,
nanoparticles can be engineered to mimic the size, shape, and surface features of
pathogens, thereby activating specific immune pathways and promoting potent
immune responses. Surface modification of nanoparticles can also promote the
Y. Perrie (✉) · C. Webb
Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy
and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
e-mail: yvonne.perrie@strath.ac.uk
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
I. F. Uchegbu et al. (eds.), Fundamentals of Pharmaceutical Nanoscience,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59478-6_18
485
486 Y. Perrie and C. Webb
https://t.me/med1917
targeting of specific cells or tissues within the immune system, enhancing antigen
uptake and presentation to immune cells, such as dendritic cells. Finally,
nanoparticles can act as adjuvants in their own right, boosting the immune response
and promoting long-lasting immunity. This combination of characteristics makes
nanoparticles invaluable tools in the development of vaccines.
18.1.1 Developing Immune Responses
Regardless of vaccine innovation and development, the key and fundamental attribute that all vaccines commonly share is immunity against a pathogen without prior
exposure to the specific disease in question. To achieve this, the vaccine aims to
closely copy foreign pathogens’ mechanisms of action that induce the immune
response without the pathogenicity and strong immune responses associated with
the pathogen’s exposure. To achieve this, both innate and acquired immune
responses must be activated (Fig. 18.1).
Innate immunity is immunity that an organism is born with. This type of
immunity is part of our genetic profile and offers lifelong protection. The innate
immune response is fast-acting and non-specific, so it responds the same irrespective
of the pathogen it detects. In humans, the innate immune system encompasses
physical and chemical barriers, that provide a first line of defence with chemical
Fig. 18.1 Schematic of the three layers of immune defence. The first layer consists of physical and
physiological barriers, including the skin and mucous membranes (e.g. mouth, lung), body temperature, and differences in pH (e.g. in the stomach). If the pathogen crosses these barriers, it then
faces innate (non-specific) and adaptive immune responses. (Created with
BioRender.com)
18 Use of Nanotechnology in the Formulation of Vaccines 487
https://t.me/med1917
(humoral) and cellular aspects as the second line of defence. Physical barriers that
protect us from infection include our skin, eyelashes, tears mucous, and stomach
acid. Chemical defences include complement activation and inflammatory
responses. Cellular defences within the innate immune response include phagocytes,
natural killer cells, and mast cells. Their role is to identify non-self-pathogens,
neutralise or destroy them, and activate the adaptive immune
The activation of the innate immune response characterises the initial stages of
infection. The nature of the immune response is dependent on whether the threat is
intracellular, such as a virus, or extracellular, like a bacterium. During this phase, the
innate immune response identifies potential invaders by detecting the absence of host
MHC-class I molecules that signify “self” or by recognising molecules commonly
found in pathogens but not in the host. These recognised molecules are known as
pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) and their identification triggers
processes such as phagocytosis or cytotoxic killing to eliminate the invaders. In the
case of intracellular threats, specific receptors called pattern recognition receptors
(PRRs) detect foreign components such as viral RNA, DNA, or intermediate
products.
Consequently, the activation of PRRs leads to the production of pro-inflammatory
cytokines, the apoptosis of infected cells, or the labelling of infected cells for
targeted destruction by other innate immune cells. Phagocytic cells, including
dendritic cells, can internalise foreign substances and process them. Through this
process, these cells break down the engulfed material and display fragments of it on
their cell surfaces, which plays a crucial role in initiating the adaptive immune
response. Due to this characteristic, they are classified as antigen-presenting cells
(APCs).
When the innate immune system alone proves insufficient for controlling a
foreign threat, the adaptive immune system is triggered. In contrast, acquired
immunity is not inherent in organisms and is not genetically predet ermined, like
innate immunity. Adaptive (or acquired) immunity is acquired throughout our
lifetime due to exposure to specific antigens, either through natural means such as
infection or via vaccination. It is characterised by its specificity, memory, and ability
to mount a faster and stronger response upon re-exposure to the same antigen. Unlike
the rapid and generalised response of innate immuni ty, the adaptive immune
response is slower, taking days or even weeks to develop after initial encounter
(known as the primary immune response). However, it exhibits specificity towards
the particular antigen(s) present and can retain long-term immunological memory.
This memory allows for a quicker and more efficient response if the same antigen is
re-encountered in the future. However, adaptive immunity can wane, particularly if
there is no regular re-exposure to the antigen.
The adaptive immune system is triggered through the action of signalling molecules and/or the presentation of antigens by antigen-presenting cells. Among these
antigen-presenting cells, dendritic cells play a crucial role by displaying major
histocompatibility complex class II (MHC class II) molecules on their surface,
facilitating the presentation of foreign peptides and ensuring appropriate immune
activation. The adaptive immune response encompasses two main components: the
response.
488 Y. Perrie and C. Webb
https://t.me/med1917
cell-mediated immune response and the humoral immune response. The cellmediated response is driven by T cells, which can directly eliminate infected cells
or help stimulate B cells towards antibody production. Upon activation, naïve B cells
differentiate into memory cells and plasma cells. Memory cells and plasma cells are
integral to long-term immunity. Plasma cells secrete large quantities of antigenspecific antibodies, effectively neutralising and elimina
throughout their lifespan. Memory cells, on the other hand, can persist for extended
periods, reactivating upon re-exposure to their specific targe t antigen. This
reactivation prompts the production of antibodies, resulting in a swifter and more
robust response to repeated exposures.
ting the target pathogen
18.1.2 How Do Vaccines Promote Immune Responses?
As outlined, our immune system is developed to offer a wide range of protection;
however, one issue is that during an infection the body must be able to respond
quickly and vigorously enough to provide the appropriate protection without the
individual suffering the potentially lethal consequences of the infection. To address
this, vaccines have been developed. A vaccine can be defined as a biological product
that can safely induce an immune response that promotes protection against infection
and/or disease on subsequent exposure to a pathogen (Pollard and Bijker 2021). The
goal of a vaccine is to develop long-lived immunological protection, whereby the
first encounter with a pathogen is remembered and recognised by the immune
system. Therefore, the immune system can generate a rapid, protective response
against the infection. To do this, the vaccine should contain antigens that represent
components of the pathogen. These antigens are normally protein-based and can be
derived directly from the pathogen or produced synthetically. However, polysaccharide antigens can also be used to induce immune responses. Nanoparticles can
support vaccine efficacy by protecting and delivering such antigens to immune cells,
thereby supporting the priming of the immune system so that subsequent exposure to
the antigen results in a rapid immune response (Fig.
18.2).
18.2 Current Vaccines Options
In their traditional organisation, vaccines are classified as live and non-live. This
classification allows us to distinguish between vaccines that contain attenuated
replicating strains of the pathogenic organism and those that contain only components of the pathogen. More recently, several other platforms have been developed
and many of these exploit nanoparticles to promote immune responses.
Live-attenuated vaccines are composed of microbial agents that have undergone
specific mutations, rendering them less capable of growing in human cells and no
longer pathogenic to humans. Although these microorganisms can still infect their
18 Use of Nanotechnology in the Formulation of Vaccines 489
https://t.me/med1917
Fig. 18.2 (a ) Examples of nanoparticles that can be used to improve the delivery of vaccines by (b)
promoting a primary response and acquired immunity such that when the immune system encounters the pathogen, it can quickly respond to infection. (Created with
BioRender.com)
target cells, the resulting infection is mild, and the replication of the microorganisms
is limited. Prominent examples of vaccines produced using this approach include the
Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccine and the combined measles, mumps,
rubella, and yellow fever vaccine (MMR). Such vaccines are generally effective in
eliciting both humoral and cell-mediated immune responses. However, it is important to note that live-attenuated vaccines carry a potent
ial risk of reverting to
virulence. Therefore, their administration is not considered safe for immunocompromised individuals. Despite this limitation, these vaccines have proven to be
valuable tools for promoting immune protection against targeted diseases.
Killed whole or inactivated vaccines are composed of microorganisms or viruses
that have been rendered non-infectious through processes such as heat treatment or
chemical treatment with substances like formaldehyde. These methods effectively
eliminate their ability to cause infection while preserving their immunogenicity.
While these vaccines provide safety advantages, they generally exhibit lower efficacy compared to live-attenuated vaccines. They typically induce primarily humoral
immunity and often necessitate booster doses to maintain protection. Several examples of killed whole or inactivated vaccines include trivalent-inactivated influenza
vaccines, cholera vaccines, and hepatitis A vaccines.
Toxoid vaccines are produced by some microorganisms that produce toxic compounds responsible for causing the disease (i.e. tetanus toxin and diphtheria toxin).
Toxoids are inactivated forms of these toxic compounds. In addition to being
successful vaccines, toxoids may also be used to increase the immunogenicity of
some other vaccines, such as Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib), which contains a
polysaccharide unit from the virus conjugated to diphtheria or tetanus toxins.
Subunit vaccines, which include purified proteins, recombinant proteins, poly-
saccharides, and synthetic peptides, can initiate strong immune responses when
combined with adjuvants. The main benefits of subunit vaccines are their inability
to revert to a pathogenic form, decreased toxicity, reproducible production, and
improved antigen specificity; however, the immune response induced by such
490 Y. Perrie and C. Webb
https://t.me/med1917
vaccines is short-lived, and thus several boosts are required to achieve protection.
For the Hepatitis B virus, for example, only the surface protein of the virus is used to
generate the subunit vaccine.
Virus-like vesicles mimic the characteristics of viruses while lacking their genetic
material. They are derived from the outer membrane of cells, typically from bacteria
or mammalian cells, through various techniques such as cell disruption or membrane
blebbing. These vesicles can be engineered to display specific antigens on their
surface, triggering an immune response upon administration. The Group B meningococcal vaccine is an example of this type of vaccine.
Protein–polysaccharide conjugates represent a class of vaccines where polysaccharides from pathogenic microorganisms are chemically linked to carrier proteins. This conjugation process enhances the immunogenicity of the
polysaccharides, as they alone may not elicit a robust immune response. The carrier
protein serves as a scaffold, enabling the immune system to recognise, and mount a
stronger immune response against the attached polysaccharide. Examples of these
types of vaccines include Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae
type B vaccines.
Nucleic acid vaccines use either DNA or messenger RNA (mRNA) to deliver
genetic instructions to cells within the body. DNA vaccines contain a small, circular
piece of DNA encoding the antigen of interest, while mRNA vaccines carry a
synthesised mRNA sequence encoding the antigen. Once administered, the genetic
material is taken up by cells, which use it as a blueprint to produce the antigen
internally. This antigen production triggers an immune response, stimulating the
production of specific antibodies, and activating immune cells. Examples of mRNA
vaccines include the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.
Recombinant viral vector vaccines use the replication machinery of viruses to
deliver and express specific antigens of interest. These vaccines employ harmless
viral vectors, engineered to carry and deliver genetic material encoding the desired
antigen into the cells of the vaccinated individual. The viral vectors, such as
adenoviruses or modified vaccinia viruses, have been modified to remove their
ability to cause disease while retaining their ability to efficiently infect cells and
produce the desired antigens. Once inside the host cells, the viral vec tors instruct the
cells to produce the antigen, triggering an immune response. Examples of these types
of vaccines include the Oxford-AstraZeneca SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.
Not all these options may be applicable for a given pathogen and Fig.
an overview of options for vaccine develo pment against a viral infection. In general,
live vaccines produce strong immune responses but may induce some mild disease
and may have the potential to replicate in an uncontrolled manner in immunocompromised individuals. In contrast, non-live vaccines do not present this risk; however
they often require an adjuvant to improve their ability to induce an immune response.
On several of these vaccine platforms, delivery systems and/or adjuvants are
required; DNA and RNA vaccines require a delivery system to protect the nucleic
acid payload, while peptide and sub-unit vaccine formulations need adjuvants to
improve immune response, and their mechanisms of inducing immune responses can
differ (Fig.
18.4). The mRNA vaccines are delivered to bystander cells inside lipid
18.3 gives
18 Use of Nanotechnology in the Formulation of Vaccines 491
https://t.me/med1917
Fig. 18.3 An overview of different platforms for viral vaccine development. Strategies include live
attenuated, inactivated, and use of synthetic peptides and recombinant approaches. (a) Live
attenuated, (b) whole inactivated, (c) split inactivated, (d) synthetic peptides, (e) virus-like particles,
(f) DNA or RNA, (g) recombinant subunits, (h) recombinant bacterial vectors, (i) recombinant viral
vectors. (Created with BioRender.com)
Fig. 18.4 Immune responses induced by nanoparticle-based vaccines. mRNA vaccines use lipid
nanoparticles to deliver modified antigen-coding mRNA to bystander cells at the injection site. The
translated antigen is then secreted, taken up, and processed by antigen-presenting cells (APCs). In
sub-unit protein-based vaccines, the protein antigen can be entrapped or associated with liposomes,
allowing direct processing by APCs. Virosomes, containing protein antigens on their surface
nanoparticles, are also directly processed by APCs. (Created with BioRender.com)
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана