spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online September 23, 2003
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in JEB
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dunachie, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by Hill, A. V. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dunachie, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by Hill, A. V. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Prime-boost strategies for malaria vaccine development

Susanna J. Dunachie* and Adrian V. S. Hill

Centre for Clinical Vaccinology and Tropical Medicine,, University of Oxford, Churchill Hospital, Old Road, Oxford OX3 7LJ, UK



View larger version (15K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Immunogenicity following different prime-boost immunization regimens. The CD8 T-cell response to a nonamer Kd-restricted epitope in the CS protein of P. berghei was measured by gamma-interferon ELISPOT assay of Balb/c mouse splenocytes after various immunisation regimens, shown on the x-axis. The interval between immunisations was 14 days. Each bar represents the mean number of spot forming cells per 106 splenocytes from three mice assayed individually. Reproduced with permission from Schneider et al. (1998Go).

 


View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. T-cell responses as measured by {gamma}-interferon ELISPOT to pools of peptides from the ME-TRAP malaria insert seven days after various DNA and/or MVA vaccination regimes. Summed net responses to pools of peptides from all of the vaccine insert, from the T9/96 strain of TRAP encoded in the vaccine and from TRAP from another P. falciparum strain, 3D7, are shown. The arithmetic mean of the responses for the subjects in that group are presented with an error bar to indicate the standard error of the mean. D, DNA-ME TRAP given by intramuscular injection into the deltoid muscle; G, DNA-ME TRAP given epidermally by needleless delivery device; M, MVA-ME TRAP given by intradermal injection. The numerals included in parentheses in the regimen names correspond to the dosage of vaccine, in mg for DNA and p.f.u.x107 for MVA. For example, the last column DDDMM(15) shows summed ELISPOT responses for subjects vaccinated with three priming doses of 2 mg DNA-ME TRAP i.m. followed by two boosting doses of MVA-ME TRAP at 1.5x108 p.f.u.

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2003