Batista A, Murillo G, Pérez U, Tur E, Portuondo D, Pérez O

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 22-27
PDF size: 273.31 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Adjuvants can cause local irritation of the mucosa and this might be a limitation for their clinical use. In order to evaluate if AFCo1, a novel intranasal adjuvant based on a proteoliposome-derived cochleate structure from Neisseria meningitidis B, produces mucosal irritation, the direct effect after its application on the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) of hen’s eggs was studied using HET-CAM (hen’s egg test on chorioallantoic membrane), according to protocol 47 of INVITTOX, an in vitro validated method that substitutes the classic Draize´s test in rabbits. Three 10-days-old eggs were used for each evaluated product (AFCo1 or PBS as vehicle) and two eggs for each positive control of irritation (NaOH a 0.1 N y SDS at 1%). The products were applied on the CAM to evaluate the grade of lyses, haemorrhage and coagulation, at five minutes. The products were classified according to an established scale for non transparent substances. Additionally, a microscopic evaluation was carried out to confirm previous results. When determining the severity degree of the three reactions after the application of AFCO1 and the diluent, they show to be non irritant, what demonstrates that this cochleate does not produce direct epithelial damage. Our results also reveal the utility of HET-CAM as tool for the evaluation of mucosal irritation of vaccine adjuvants.

REFERENCES

1. O’Hagan D, Valiante NM. Recent advances in the discovery and delivery of vaccine adjuvants. Nature Rev 2003;2: 727–35.

2. Infante JF, Sifontes S, Pérez V, Bracho G, Hernández T, Zayas C, et al. Ensayo de inmunogenicidad y de toxicidad local del cocleato de Neisseria meningitidis en ratas Spregue Dawley. VacciMonitor 2009; 18(1):1-7.

3. Fujihashi K, Koga T, van Ginkel FW, Hagiwara Y, McGhee J R A dilemma for mucosal vaccination efficacy versus: toxicity using enterotoxin- based adjuvants. Vaccine 2002; 20:2431–38.

4. Gizurarson S, Georgsson G, Aggerbeck H, Thorarinsdóttir H and Heron I. Evaluation of local toxicity after repeated intranasal vaccination of guinea-pigs. Toxicology 1996; 107(1): 61-8.

5. Hardegree MC. and Pittman M. Influence of antigens on release of fatty acids from Arlacel A (mannide monooleate). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med 1966;123:79.

6. Sun HX, Xie Y, Ye Y. Advances in saponin-based adjuvants. Vaccine 2009; 27: 1787-96.

7. Mutsch M, Zhou W, Rhodes P, Bopp M, Chen RT, Linder T, et al. Use of the inactivated intranasal influenza vaccine and the risk of Bell’s palsy in Switzerland. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 896-903.

8. Harkema JR. Comparative pathology of nasal mucosa in laboratory animals exposed to inhaled irritants. Environ Health Perspective 1990;85: 231-8.

9. Balls M. The EC/HO international validation study on alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. Toxicology in vitro 1995; 9:871-929.

10. Ying Y, Xinfeng Y, Wengai Z, Jinheng C, Jinyu X, Guangyu Y, et al. Combinated in vitro test as an alternative to in vivo eye irritation tests. ATLA 2010;38: 303-14.

11. Doty RL, Cometto-Muñiz E, Jalowayski A, Dalton P, Kendal- Reed M, Hodgson M. Assessment of Upper Respiratory Tract and Ocular Irritative Effects of Volatile Chemicals in Humans. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2004; 34(2): 85–142.

12. Spielmann H. HET-CAM Test. The ERGATT/FRAME. Databank of in vitro techniques. INVITTOX 1992; IP-47: 1-9.

13. Balls M Animal experimentation and the three Rs: past, present and future. ATLA 2009; 37, suppl2:1-6.

14. Djabari Z, Bauza E, Dal Farra C, Domloge N The HET-CAM test combined with histological studies for better evaluation of active ingredient innocuity. Int J Tissue React. 2002;24(4):117- 21.

15. Murillo G, Pérez U, Tur E, Vinardell P, García G, Pascual J. Estudio comparativo de tres variantes del ensayo de la membrana corioalantoidea del huevo de gallina para la evaluación de la irritabilidad ocular. Rev Toxicol 2003;20:187- 92.

16. Pérez O, Bracho G, Lastre M, et al. Método de obtención de estructuras cocleares. Composiciones vacunales y adyuvantes basados en estructuras cocleares y sus intermediarios. 2002 Patent application Cu 2002–0292.

17. Brennan F, Dougan G. Non-clinical safety evaluation of novel vaccines and adjuvants: new products, new strategies. Vaccine 2005;23:3210–22.

18. Seppic. MontanideTM IMS: An innovative range of adjuvants for vaccines and injectables. P/0891/GB/03/November 2002. France: www.seppic.com.

19. Batista A, Quattrocchi V, Olivera C, Langellotti C, Pappalardo J, Di Giacomo S. et al. Adjuvant effect of CliptoxTM on the protective immune response induced by an inactivated vaccine against foot and mouth disease virus in mice. Vaccine 2010;28: 6361–66.