Antibody to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) gp160 in mucosal specimens of asymptomatic HIV-1-infected volunteers parenterally immunized with an experimental recombinant HIV-1 IIIB gp160 vaccine. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases-sponsored AIDS Vaccine Evaluation Group

Mucosal AIDS vaccines

Debates are still being waged over what is the best strategy for developing a potent AIDS vaccine. All the obvious approaches to making AIDS vaccines have been tried in the past two decades without much success. It is clear that new thinking and a revision of prevailing dogmas needs to be in place if we really want a vaccine. Conventional envelope-based antibody-inducing vaccines do not appear to hold promise, and broadly-neutralizing antibodies are now being searched as an alternative to the failed approach with subunit vaccines. The current consensus is that cellular immune responses, especially those mediated by CD8 cytotoxic/suppressor (CTL) and CD4 helper T lymphocytes, are needed to control HIV. Vaccines capable of inducing cell-mediated responses are, therefore, considered critical for controlling the spread of HIV. DNA-based vaccines triggering CTL reaction are currently thought to be an answer, but will they fulfill the promise? In the following paragraphs, a critical assessment of the state of the art will be provided in an attempt to analyze what we know and still don't know. The focus of this review is primarily on mucosal vaccines-a relatively new area in AIDS research. The update on V-1 Immunitor, the first mucosal AIDS vaccine available commercially, is provided within this context. Some of the reviewed concepts may be disputable, but without departure from the uninspiring consensus no substantial progress in the AIDS vaccine field can be envisioned.

Development and standardization of methods to evaluate the antibody response to an HIV-1 candidate vaccine in secretions and sera of seronegative vaccine recipients

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) were developed to test, in serum and mucosal samples, total IgG, total IgA, serum albumin, and anti-gp120 MN and anti-p24 LAI IgG and IgA levels. These ELISAs were optimized according to reagents and experimental conditions. Inter- and intra-assay coefficients of variation ranged from 3.3% to 18.6%. The ELISA results were linear and precise, and for anti-HIV-1 IgG and IgA, the analytical recovery was close to 100%. For IgG and IgA titration against gp120 MN and p24 LAI, standards were made using pooled sera or gammaglobulins with assigned titres in ELISA units per ml (EU/ml). These standards were used to obtain a linear regression curve that could then be used to obtain the titres of experimental samples. The cut-offs for positivity were determined for sera and mucosal fluid using healthy controls. Validation conditions were defined for ELISAs, and samples that did not satisfy these conditions were retested. Measurement of total IgG and IgA allowed normalization and comparison of the results of specific immunoglobulin levels between different samples. Serum albumin was tested as a marker of transudation from serum to mucosal fluid, allowing calculation of the relative coefficient of excretion, which is one element required to determine the origin of the immunoglobulin detected in mucosal samples. These ELISAs were developed with samples from HIV-1-infected and healthy subjects. We now have the tools to study and understand mucosal immunity in seronegative subjects vaccinated with an HIV-1 candidate vaccine.