SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • BCG;
  • biomarkers;
  • prime-boost;
  • tuberculosis;
  • vaccine

Summary

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References

Tuberculosis (TB) continues to be a major global health disaster, despite the widespread use of BCG and effective drug therapies. The development of an efficacious new TB vaccine would be an important component of disease control in the future. Many approaches are being utilised to enhance understanding of the requirements of a successful vaccine. Numerous vaccines are being designed and assessed in a series of animal models, with a few progressing to clinical trials. Here, the steps involved in the development and evaluation of TB vaccines will be discussed, including description of the most frequently used animal models and the processes involved in advancing vaccines to phase III trials.


Global need

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References

It is estimated that 2 billion people, one-third of the world's population, are infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis and it causes 2 million deaths each year [1]. Of these deaths, 98% occur in the developing world, where the disease predominates. The burden of disease falls on young adults, consequently TB is having a devastating effect on the economies of countries overwhelmed by this pathogen [2]. Although South-East Asia remains the region with the highest number of cases, the area with the highest rate of increase is sub-Saharan Africa. Much of this is fuelled by the HIV pandemic [3]. Being dually infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and TB worsens outcome from both diseases and TB is the leading cause of death among HIV-positive individuals [4]. Rates of TB are also rising in Eastern Europe, a region which has one of the highest incidences of drug resistance. This is largely the consequence of the breakdown of the infrastructure for TB control [3].

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched a strategy for gaining control over TB in 1995, known as Directly Observed Therapy Short course (DOTS), which aimed to reduce the spread of infection by diagnosing and treating infectious cases. Since its conception, the strategy has evolved. It now utilizes different providers for drug administration and encompasses issues of multi-drug resistance and HIV co-infection into its policies. Between 1995 and 2003, the estimated number of smear positive cases treated under DOTS increased fourfold, with an estimated treatment efficacy of 82%. However, this was thought to account for only 45% of the total smear-positive cases [5]. Consequently there is increasing recognition that a broader approach needs to be adopted to combat the scale of the problem. The STOP TB partnership announced a new global plan to control TB at the beginning of 2006, emphasizing the additional importance of researching new diagnostic, vaccination and therapeutic tools for the future [6]. There are clearly many advantages to disease prevention, and vaccination is known to be a cost-effective strategy [7]. Fortunately, with an increasing awareness of the global nature of the disease and the increasing concern over multi-drug resistance, increased funding is becoming available for TB vaccine research and progress is being made. However, the challenge of working with TB means that answers do not come quickly.

Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References

Among immunocompetent people, only 30% of individuals exposed to M. tuberculosis become infected with bacteria and of these only 10% go on to develop disease in their lifetime [8,9]. Although the innate immune response can account for much of the early resistance, later protection is the consequence of an adaptive response. This strongly suggests that immune control is feasible and is the premise on which TB vaccinology is based. Vaccination could intervene at a number of time points in the TB disease process. An effective pre-exposure vaccine could reduce the number of individuals infected with bacteria or could modify the immune response to further reduce the chance of later reactivation. In areas of high TB endemicity such a vaccine would have to be administered early in life to be maximally effective. A post-exposure vaccine, to be used in healthy individuals infected with M. tuberculosis, could reduce the probability of going on to develop TB disease. It could work by sterilizing bacteria that are residing in a dormant state, by preventing reactivation and/or by reducing the chance of reinfection by exogenous M. tuberculosis. Finally, a therapeutic vaccine could function alone, or more probably alongside antibiotic regimens, for individuals with active TB disease and could potentially shorten the treatment period. Although it is known that mycobacteria change their transcription patterns during different clinical conditions [10–12], it remains unknown whether vaccines designed primarily as pre-exposure vaccines could have an effect in the infected or active disease setting or vice versa. The majority of research to date has been in the development of vaccines designed primarily as pre-exposure vaccines, and work in this area is the subject of this review.

What do we want a vaccine to do?

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References

Understanding natural immune correlates, or biomarkers, of protection is important both in guiding vaccine design but additionally in determining potential early markers of efficacy for vaccines that reach clinical trials.

M. tuberculosis is an intracellular pathogen; consequently the cellular arm of the immune system, particularly T helper 1 (Th1) cells, is pivotal to host defence. The increased rate of TB reactivation seen in HIV-positive individuals illustrates the important role played by CD4 T cells in protective immunity against mycobacteria. This is emphasized by the fact that vulnerability to TB disease increases with falling CD4 counts [13]. Other human models of M. tuberculosis infection have suggested that interferon (IFN)-γ is a central player. Increased IFN-γ production is seen in pleural lymphocytes from patients with TB pleuritis [14,15] and from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from latently infected individuals [15,16]. Furthermore, increased susceptibility to recurrent mycobacterial infections has been seen in individuals with rare Mendelian abnormalities, such as complete or partial IFN-GR1 [17], interleukin (IL)-12 R deficiency [18,19] or complete IFN-GR2 deficiency [20] again pointing to the role of the IFN-γ/IL12 pathway. Finally, extensive animal data support the central roles of CD4 T cells, IFN-γ and IL-12 [21–27].

Other essential components of the host's natural response to M. tuberculosis infection have been, or are being, deciphered by a number of different experimental approaches.

Animal models

Knock-out and transgenic mice have demonstrated the importance of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I and CD8 T cells [27–30], in addition to cytokines such as tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α[31,32], IL-6 [33], IL-7 and IL-15 [34]. New data suggest that the IL-23/IL-17 pathway may also play a role [35]. Excess immune regulation can prevent eradication of infection, although it may be important in preventing collateral pathology. Th2 cells, T regulatory cells (Treg) and/or immunosuppressive cytokines such as IL-10 or transforming growth factor (TGF)-β can all act as immune regulators. However, there is no animal data supporting the theory that increased levels of IL-4 [36,37] or IL-10 enhance the likelihood of active infection [36,38], although IL-10 may play a role in reactivation [39]. In contrast, TGF-β has been shown to suppress mycobacterial immune responses in a guinea pig model [40] and forkhead box P3 (FOXP3)+ CD25+ Treg have been implicated in impairing protective immunity in mice [35].

Immune responses in TB patients

Using blood and bronchoalveolar lavage samples from TB patients has confirmed the importance of immune regulation in the human TB disease process. TB patients have been shown to have an expansion of Treg among PBMCs which can suppress Th1 responses [41]. Furthermore increases in IL-10 and TGF-β, have been detected in bronchoalveolar lavage of TB patients, suggesting that down-regulation of the effector immune response can result in TB reactivation [42]. The importance of other cytokines in natural resistance against M. tuberculosis has been revealed, with the introduction of new therapeutic agents. For example, anti-TNF-α therapy, used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune disorders, has been associated with reactivation of TB disease, highlighting the importance of TNF-α in host defence [43].

Cross-sectional studies

The development of new tools to diagnose TB infection has facilitated the design of large studies to determine natural immune correlates of protection. Until recently, only the tuberculin skin test was available, with limitations insensitivity and specificity [44]. However, following the sequencing of the M. tuberculosis genome [45], antigens from the region of difference (RD1), such as early secretory antigenic target 6 kDa protein (ESAT-6) and culture filtrate protein-10 (CFP-10), which are absent from bacille Calmette–Guérin (BCG) and most environmental mycobacteria, have been identified. Tools based on the in vitro measurement of IFN-γ to these antigens have been developed [45–47]. Two European Union-funded cross-sectional studies among different African populations have compared the host immune responses in TB patients with household controls or in those with latent infection. Reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of PBMCs has been used to study Th1, Th2 and other biomarkers of disease susceptibility. These studies have suggested that a shift from Th1 to Th2 is associated with TB disease and that suppression of Th2 is important for TB control [48–50]. Further intensive investigation of other correlates of protection is being planned through a Gates-funded Grand Challenge project, co-ordinated by the Max Planck Institute. This multi-centre study aims to identify molecular and cellular responses of pathogens and patients which correlate with protection [51].

We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References

The BCG vaccine, developed from an M. bovis strain that had been subcultured 230 times, was first administered in 1921. It is now used extensively worldwide, with recent estimates of 76% of children being vaccinated [7]. A recent meta-analysis revealed an efficacy of 73% and 76% efficacy against childhood TB meningitis and miliary TB, respectively, in the first 5 years of life and showed BCG vaccination to be highly cost-effective [7]. BCG is also known to provide protection against leprosy [52] and possibly other causes of childhood mortality [53,54]. However, the greatest burden of TB is an adult pulmonary disease and the efficacy of BCG in this group is much more questionable. A meta-analysis revealed efficacies ranging from 0 to 80% in this population [55]. Importantly, the trials that took place nearer the tropics, such as Chingleput and Malawi, revealed efficacies of 0%. Many explanations have been proposed to explain this variability, including issues of genetics, cold-chain and vaccine strain. However, the hypothesis with the greatest support is that increased exposure to environmental mycobacteria can interfere with the apparent efficacy of BCG. There is evidence for two mechanisms by which this inhibition could occur. Environmental mycobacteria themselves can induce some protective immunity and thereby mask the effect of BCG at a population level [56], but they can also induce an immune response that prevents BCG replicating and inducing a protective immune response [57,58].

How does BCG protect?

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References

In addition to enhancing knowledge on natural host immunity, increasing the understanding of mechanisms of protection induced by BCG and reasons for its failure may give further clues for potential mechanisms for new vaccine candidates to target.

Current understanding of the mechanisms of BCG-induced protection in humans and in animal models is poor.

Animal models

In mice, BCG vaccination has been shown to induce CD4 IFN-γ producing T cells, which results in an accelerated response to TB infection and the more rapid development of granulomas [59]. In this model, BCG does not prevent infection; instead it contains infection, preventing bacillaemic spread and reducing the overall bacterial burden. In the guinea pig, BCG prolongs survival but the mechanism by which this is achieved remains to be elucidated.

Household contact study

Studies investigating the effect of BCG on the immune response in humans are increasing. Until recently, the consensus had been that BCG had no effect on preventing M. tuberculosis infection, but did prevent dissemination of infection from the lung, accounting for its efficacy in preventing severe childhood forms of TB, TB meningitis and miliary TB. However, recent evidence from a household contact study in Turkey, which identified infected cases by positive responses in a T cell assay to ESAT-6 and CFP-10, suggested that BCG vaccination can prevent infection [60].

Cross-sectional studies

Comparative studies have investigated the induction of IFN-γ responses to purified protein derivative (PPD) following BCG vaccination in Malawi and in East London. These have revealed a greater enhancement in IFN-γ response in UK teenagers than in Malawi, with baseline PPD levels being higher in Malawi. It has been suggested that this reflects enhanced exposure to mycobacteria in Malawi, whether that be environmental mycobacteria or M. tuberculosis[61]. The reduced IFN-γ levels induced by BCG in Malawi may account directly for the 0% efficacy of BCG in this area, or alternatively could reflect a reduced induction of other protective immune mechanisms. It is known that BCG can induce both antigen-specific CD4 T cells and CD8 T cells, the latter in much lower frequency [62]. In vitro work has demonstrated that BCG-vaccinated T cells can inhibit mycobacterial growth killing compared to non-vaccinated controls [63].

Case–control study

An extremely important study, led by the University of Cape Town and sponsored by Aeras Global TB Foundation, is studying immune correlates of protection in infants after BCG vaccination. A total of 5675 infants have been vaccinated with BCG. Blood samples were taken 10 weeks after vaccination and are being stored for wide-ranging immune and molecular immune assays. Community follow-up has enabled cases and matched controls to be identified, and will hopefully allow the identification of potential immunological correlates of protection. The range of tools and optimized assays that are being used make this a very powerful study and the study design is likely to be used as a model for the investigation of correlates of protection for newly designed TB vaccines [64,65].

Improving BCG

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References

Knowing that BCG prevents deaths in young children and is cost-effective in areas of high TB endemicity means that it would be unwise and unethical to replace it completely as a TB vaccine. However, there is undoubtedly enormous scope to improve on BCG-induced protection, both in terms of lengthening the period of protection and in providing higher levels of protection against pulmonary disease.

Ways of improving BCG?

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References

Until recently there was little information to support or refute the use of repeated BCG vaccination, but a large cluster–control study in Brazil, published recently, provides no evidence to support this practice [66]. However, the heterologous prime-boost strategy, whereby two different vaccines containing the same antigen administered a time-period apart, has been shown to be highly effective at inducing both CD4 and CD8 T cells in animals and humans [67,68]. Furthermore, this strategy has been shown to enhance protective efficacy against M. tuberculosis challenge in animal models [69]. BCG can be incorporated into this strategy, if the boost contains an antigen also present in BCG [70,71]. Using a heterologous boost means that there is less antibody and T cell immunity against the vector, thus optimizing the boosting potential of the second vaccine. Different approaches in vaccine design are being pursued, although most are focusing on enhancing the Th1 response, together with CD8 T cell response. Broadly, groups are either working on improving the mycobacterial prime or on developing effective subunit boosting vaccines. Both recombinant BCG vaccines and boosting vaccines have reached clinical trials. There are suggestions that combining these two approaches may also be effective and preclinical studies have begun to investigate some of these combinations. The most advanced vaccine candidates within each group are listed below.

Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References

A number of novel strategies are being pursued to either improve BCG or to develop attenuated M. tuberculosis strains to use as an alternative to BCG. There are supportive preclinical data for each of these strategies.

Endosome escape BCG

A BCG which has had the urease gene deleted and a lysin gene from Listeria monocytogenes inserted, rBCGΔUreC:Hly+, showed greater protective efficacy than parental strain BCG against aerosol M. tuberculosis challenge for > 200 days in a murine model [72]. Engulfed mycobacteria, including BCG, inhibit the acidification of phagosomes through the secretion of urease. This immune evasion strategy, which cannot occur in BCG lacking urease, prevents mycobacterial death and antigen presentation to T cells via MHC class I. The lysin gene product enables the phagosome membrane to be punctured, which allows passage of the BCG into the cytoplasm and access to MHC class I. In addition, rBCGΔUreC:Hly+ is pro-apoptotic, enabling enhanced cross-priming. The improved protection seen with this vaccine has been accounted for by the greater CD8 response [72]. There are plans for this vaccine to enter phase I clinical trials soon.

Over-expressing antigens

BCG has also been developed, as a vector for other immunodominant antigens. For example, rBCG30 is a Tice strain of BCG, engineered to over-express antigen 85B, a mycolyl transferase involved in mycobacterial cell wall synthesis. This vaccine has shown enhanced protection against TB challenge in two animal models [73,74] and has completed one phase I clinical trial but with disappointing immunogenicity [75].

Combined endosome escape and antigen over-expresssion

A recombinant BCG that is designed to escape from the phagosome using the pH-independent perfringolysin and additionally over-expressing mycobacterial antigens Ag85A, Ag85B and TB10·4 is being developed by Aeras and is scheduled for phase I clinical trials in 2007 [75].

Introduction of deleted genes

Genes that were lost from M. bovis in the development of BCG and account for the attenuation of BCG have been reinserted. For example, the RD1 region has been reinserted into BCG, producing a vaccine that is highly immunogenic [76], although there are safety concerns for its use in humans [77]. A further limitation of such a vaccine is that it would interfere with the new immunodiagnostic tools.

Attenuated TB

There are, understandably, many concerns about the use of attenuated M. tuberculosis vaccines. These include issues of safety, public perception, regulatory authority hurdles and the potential to release antibiotic resistance gene markers into the environment. A WHO committee announced recently that such vaccines would require two non-reverting independent mutations, demonstration of safety in SCID mice and that use would be limited to HIV-negative individuals [78]. The most advanced attenuated TB vaccines in development are vaccines with disruptions in lipid metabolism pathways, mc2 6020 (pan C, pan D, lysA) and mc2 6030 (pan C, pan D, ΔRD1), which also has the RD1 region deleted [79–81]. Both of these vaccines are scheduled for phase I studies in 2006.

Improving boost

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References

In designing subunit boosting vaccines, one has choice in which mycobacterial antigen or antigens to use and in which vehicle to deliver them.

Antigen(s)

All groups to date have focused on antigens that are immunodominant in natural host immunity in animals and humans. Those antigens that are secreted by mycobacteria into their culture filtrate have aroused the most interest. These include antigens from antigen 85 complex (A and B) [82,83], antigens of RD1 region including ESAT-6, TB10·4 and Mtb 9·9 [84,85] and antigens belonging to the PPE family of proteins (containing conserved proline and glutamate residues) Mtb39a-e and Mtb41 [86–88]. The concern over compromising the specificity of new immunodiagnostics means that subunit vaccines containing ESAT-6 are no longer being developed. The use of antigens that are conserved among environmental mycobacteria may be particularly beneficial, as individuals could theoretically be repeatedly boosted to such antigens.

Delivery vehicle

DNA, fusion proteins plus adjuvants and viral vectors have all been considered as vaccine delivery vehicles. DNA vaccines have been shown to be highly immunogenic in animal models, but have consistently given disappointing results in humans. In fact, there is no prophylactic TB DNA vaccine currently in development. The adjuvants that are being trialled with fusion proteins include ASO2A and IC-31. These are all known to be powerful adjuvants for CD4 T cells. Strong CD8 T cell inducing adjuvants are yet to be identified. Both poxviruses and adenoviruses are being pursued currently as possible viral vectors, the latter inducing strong CD8 T cell responses. An adenovirus (human serotype 5), AdHu5, containing antigen 85A has shown efficacy superior to BCG [89] and an adenovirus (human serotype 35) AdHu35 containing antigen 85A, antigen 85B and TB10·4 has also shown protective efficacy comparable to BCG [90]. However, there are issues surrounding the high level of pre-existing immunity to ubiquitous viruses such as AdHu5 and AdHu35 [91]. Consequently, work is being conducted to circumvent this through the development of either Simian vectors or chimeric vectors, using proteins from rare human serotypes [92]. The boosting vaccines which have reached the clinical trial stage of assessment are as follows.

Fusion proteins

Mtb72F, a fusion protein of Mtb 39 and Mtb 32 administered with the adjuvant ASO2A, has shown protective efficacy against M. tuberculosis challenge comparable to BCG in both mouse and guinea pig models [93,94]. This vaccine has completed clinical trials in the United States and Europe. Results from the European trial showed the induction of predominantly IL-2-producing CD4 T cells [95]. Hybrid-1, a fusion protein of Ag85B and ESAT-6 (Hybrid-1), also showed efficacy in a guinea pig model [96] and clinical trials began in Europe in November 2005. This particular vaccine is unlikely to be developed further because of the inclusion of ESAT-6 for the reason highlighted above.

Viral vectors

Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) has been shown to be a strongly immunogenic vector for both CD4 and CD8 T cells both in animal models and in human trials [67,68].

MVA85A, a recombinant MVA expressing antigen 85A, has been shown to enhance the protective efficacy of BCG in a murine [70] and macaque model (Verreck, unpublished data). This vaccine entered phase I clinical trials in September 2002 and has been assessed subsequently in series of trials in the United Kingdom and The Gambia and has recently entered phase II trials in South Africa. It has been shown to be safe and immunogenic in naive, BCG-vaccinated [97] and latently infected volunteers (Sander, unpublished data). Importantly, the boosting of IFN-γ cells, determined by the ex-vivo enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISPOT) assay, remained significantly elevated at 6 months [97] and 1 year after vaccination (McShane, unpublished data).

Steps in evaluation of new vaccines

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References

The candidate vaccines described above are only a fraction of those that have been developed. Selecting the vaccines that are most likely to be effective in humans from the hundreds that are being developed is challenging, particularly as there is no clearly defined correlate of protection. Consequently, the use of animal models and the development of immunoassays for use both in animal models and in human trials is essential. In time, validation of models and immunoassays will be possible as results of human efficacy trials become available.

Animal models

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References

Once a vaccine has been developed, protective efficacy is usually assessed first in the murine TB challenge model. Classically, 4 weeks after final vaccination mice are infected with M. tuberculosis ideally by the aerosol route. Bacterial load in lungs and spleens, together with pathology, are assessed 4 weeks later. This model is cheap and relatively short (for TB experiments). It is also possible to investigate the mechanisms by which vaccines protect, given the wide availability of immunological reagents. The major disadvantage of this model is that the pathology induced is distinct from humans. Granulomas form a collection of macrophages and lymphocytes but are much less organized than those seen in humans and do not develop necrosis. Additionally, there is a limit to the sensitivity of the model, as there is a threshold of protection. This makes discrimination between vaccines difficult, particularly vaccines designed to boost BCG.

Vaccines that have demonstrated a protective efficacy at least as good as BCG in the mouse may be assessed further in the guinea pig model. These animals are highly susceptible to TB. However, BCG induces protection which enables guinea pigs to survive 1–2 years post-low-dose challenge, which makes for lengthy and costly experiments. A more unphysiological high-dose TB challenge has been used as an alternative, to enable earlier discrimination from BCG [98]. The outcome measures in this model have traditionally been survival and pathology. Granulomas in guinea pigs are much more representative of those in humans, although they mineralize rather than cavitate. Bacterial load is used occasionally as a secondary outcome measure. The major limitation of the guinea pig model, other than the excellent protective efficacy of BCG, has been the lack of immunological reagents. However, advances in the production of guinea pig antibodies and the use of RT-PCR will facilitate immunological investigation in the near future.

Some vaccines are assessed further in the macaque model, in either cynomolagous or rhesus macaques. However, the expense and low availability of these animals limits their use. As one may imagine, these outbred animals behave in similar ways to humans, producing a similar spectrum of disease and pathology. Following low-dose aerosol challenge only 40% of animals develop active disease, with the remaining developing the equivalent of latent infection [99]. This can add difficulties to experimental set-up since larger group sizes are necessary to account for this variability in disease type. Extensive immunological reagents, including some cross-reactive human reagents, allow immunological assessment to be performed.

Many other animal models have been used to investigate TB immunopathogenesis, including the zebra fish, rat, rabbit and cow. In terms of vaccine studies, the cow is being increasingly used. It has the advantage of producing pathology similar to humans, but also that infection with M. bovis produces a natural host–pathogen pair [100].

Limitations of animal models

There are some consistent limitations to all these models for the assessment of vaccine efficacy. First, the interval between vaccination and TB challenge tends to be short, an average of 4–6 weeks. This means that the induced immune response has not had the opportunity to reach its true memory state. Assessment of protection at later time-points is more likely to truly represent vaccine efficacy in humans. Most murine studies are also curtailed at about 4 weeks following challenge and consequently provide only a snapshot of protection. There is no true consensus about which animal model is more representative of the human situation. None of the models described have been validated completely and this will not be possible until some vaccines have completed human efficacy trials. However, collaboration between teams working on vaccines in phases I and II clinical trials and those working with animal models means that comparative immunology is being performed. For the moment the different animal models are complementary, adding different information about mechanisms of actions of vaccines. Given that TB is a complex disease, with pathology being consequent upon bacterial burden and immune responses, use of different outcome measures within a model is important. For example, in the guinea pig model it has been shown that some vaccines do not reduce bacterial load but result in a lymphocytic pathology that prolongs survival [83]. Developments and application of new technology, for example radiology such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to assess pathology in lungs, will improve understanding [101]. Investigating the immunological mechanism of action of vaccines in different animal models is important, as protective efficacy could be derived in different ways by different vaccines.

Comparing different vaccines in the same animal model

With so many new vaccines being developed it is important that some comparative animal work can be performed to provide some discernment about the probable efficacy of different products. Two centres of excellence have obtained funding for comparative trials of new vaccines. These are Colorado State University, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Health Protection Agency, Centre for Applied Microbiological Research (CAMR) funded by the European Union. The former centre has developed expertise in murine and guinea pig models and the latter centre in guinea pig models. Both centres have modified their systems in an attempt to obtain as discriminatory models as possible. Additionally, all researchers are being encouraged to use a WHO supply of Erdman strain M. tuberculosis and BCG from the Statens Serum Institut (SSI) in their animal models to try to produce more uniformity in published work.

Animal models in different settings

TB exposure in the field is clearly more complex than that which is being modelled in animals. Given that an estimated one-third of the world is infected with M. tuberculosis, models of latent infection are required to predict efficacy of vaccines in this setting. Many attempts have been made to establish a model of latent TB, including adapting two basic murine models, but this is extremely lengthy and challenging and there are major limitations to each of these models [30,102–106]. The macaque appears to be a promising option, except for the expense involved, particularly since large numbers need to be infected in order to obtain a decent group size of latently infected animals. Other field scenarios that are important and for which animal models are being developed include adjusting for environmental mycobacteria exposure [56,57], helminth infection [107] and HIV, the latter requiring a Simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) macaque model.

Progress from animals to humans

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References

Once vaccines have shown efficacy in animal models, consideration can be given to entering them into early clinical trials. This is a costly exercise and funding is the limiting factor dictating which vaccines progress to the essential next stage. In order for vaccines to enter clinical trials, they have to be manufactured under good manufacturing procedures (GMP) [108], undergo toxicology studies and pass through the appropriate regulatory authorities and ethical review.

Safety

Phase I clinical trials are designed primarily to investigate safety. This is particularly important for TB vaccines, given the history of Koch's experiments in the 1890s. He claimed that he had found a cure for tuberculosis, culture filtrate protein. Following some preliminary experiments in guinea pigs he administered it publicly to patients with active TB. This had devastating consequences, several of his patients dying from tissue necrosis thought to be the result of immunopathology induced by the ‘remedy’[109]. The likelihood of this phenomenon occurring is thought to relate to bacterial load, as it has been seen following DNA vaccination in a murine model of active TB but not latent TB [110]. Concern about the possibility of inducing such a phenomenon meant that trials of the first new subunit vaccine began in those estimated to be as mycobacterially naive as possible (PPD-negative on skin test, BCG-naive), progressed to individuals vaccinated with BCG and subsequently to individuals known to be latently infected with M. tuberculosis (defined by positivity to ESAT-6 and CFP-10 in the ELISPOT assay) [111]. No vaccine other than M. vaccae has yet been trialled in active TB disease.

Immunogenicity

Establishing the immunogenicity of vaccines in phase I trials is also essential. DNA vaccines have classically produced very strong IFN-γ responses in animal models, but this does not translate to the human setting. There is no doubt that IFN-γ is essential to host defence. Although it is recognized that induction of IFN-γ alone does not correlate with protection, it is the best surrogate marker of protection currently available and remains the primary immune assay for phase I TB vaccine trials. Clearly, a number of immune assays can determine IFN-γ production and different research groups with vaccines in clinical trials are using different assays as their primary read-outs. These include the ex-vivo IFN-γ ELISPOT assay [97], the whole-blood IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [61,112] and intracellular cytokine staining [113]. Additionally, for each of these assays there is also variation in methodology between laboratories; for example, different mycobacterial products or stimulants are used. A group within the TB vaccine cluster (TBVAC; EU sixth framework) have investigated the reproducibility of each of these assays and have found the ex-vivo IFN-γ ELISPOT to provide the most consistent results (R. Audran and F. Spertini, unpublished data). The whole-blood IFN-γ ELISA is also considered to have an important role in the field, because of its simplicity. It seems sensible that there is some harmonization of methodology so that some comparison can be made of the relative immunogenicity of new vaccine candidates. However, it is important that this does not inhibit investigative research. Other important aspects of cellular immunity that are being determined in phase I trials include production of other important cytokines such as IL-2 and TNF-α, induction of CD8 T cells and regulatory T cell responses, whether that be Th2 or Treg cells themselves. Investigation of T cell phenotype will also be important in addition to other measures of T cell function, such as proliferation. Mycobacterial inhibition assays have been very challenging to perform, but methodology has developed and these assays provide a very important read-out [63]. With the development of new molecular techniques, global gene expression using microarrays will also provide new insight into the broad effects of new vaccines. Investigation of lung immune responses induced by vaccines will also be important, although currently requires the use of invasive techniques to obtain bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. One hopes that knowledge gained from trials such as the South African Tuberculosis Vaccine Initiative (SATVI) BCG trial with efficacy end-points will feed back into the design of immune assays for other vaccine trials. If correlates of protection are discovered, this will enable trials to produce speedier end points.

Phases I–III

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References

Many steps are involved to progress a vaccine from a phase I trial to a phase III efficacy trial, funding being the major hurdle. There is a requirement for further phase I trials in all appropriate patient groups, for example latently infected and HIV positive individuals and in populations of the appropriate age range for the final efficacy trial. Phase II trials need to take place among the population that will be vaccinated for the efficacy trial, to ensure immunogenicity is maintained and that there are no further safety issues. Because only one in 10 infected individuals develop TB in their lifetime, large numbers will be required to demonstrate efficacy of any new vaccines in phase III trials. Of interest, > 200 000 children were entered into the recently published BCG revaccination study in Brazil [66]. Consequently, trial sites with high incidences of M. tuberculosis, such as in Cape Town, South Africa, become very attractive. In addition to the issues of funding, consideration needs to be given to which population to use: for example, infants or adolescents, inclusive or exclusive of HIV positives, the choice of clinical end-point and the ethics of using one trial site.

Summary

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References

This is a very exciting time in TB vaccinology, with several vaccines reaching clinical trials. It is essential that endeavour continues to enhance understanding of the complex host–pathogen interaction, which results in most exposed individuals not developing persistent infection and most infected individuals not developing disease. Additionally, deciphering the mechanism of protection induced by BCG will aid vaccine design rationale. However, there must be awareness that different vaccine regimens may have different mechanisms of action. BCG appears to induce its protective efficacy by the prevention of dissemination of infection but new vaccines may work, for example, by enhancing mycobacterial clearance or by reducing the development of pathology. Therefore, alongside basic microbiological and immunological research and immuno-epidemiological research, vaccines need to progress from the preclinical stage to clinical trials. There needs to be a concerted effort to use the latest immunological and molecular techniques to decipher correlates of protection for the vaccines that do advance into phase III studies and there needs to be an iterative approach with those working on both preclinical vaccine design and with animal TB challenge models. The vaccines that have reached the most advanced stage of assessment can establish pathways for future vaccine development. There is a further hope that TB vaccine trials will enhance capacity building in different countries, with increased training opportunities and the development of an improved infrastructure in the different trial sites.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Global need
  4. Can a vaccine work, and at what stage of the disease process would it intervene?
  5. What do we want a vaccine to do?
  6. We already have a vaccine, why do we need another?
  7. How does BCG protect?
  8. Improving BCG
  9. Ways of improving BCG?
  10. Improving ‘prime’-recombinant BCG and auxotrophic M. tuberculosis
  11. Improving boost
  12. Steps in evaluation of new vaccines
  13. Animal models
  14. Progress from animals to humans
  15. Phases I–III
  16. Summary
  17. References
  • 1
    Kochi A. The global tuberculosis situation and the new control strategy of the World Health Organization. Tubercle 1991; 72:16.
  • 2
    Russell S. The economic burden of illness for households in developing countries: a review of studies focusing on malaria, tuberculosis, and human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2004; 71 (Suppl 2):14755.
  • 3
    Dye C, Watt CJ, Bleed DM, Hosseini SM, Raviglione MC. Evolution of tuberculosis control and prospects for reducing tuberculosis incidence, prevalence, and deaths globally. JAMA 2005; 293:276775.
  • 4
    Grant AD, Djomand G, De Cock KM. Natural history and spectrum of disease in adults with HIV/AIDS in Africa. Aids 1997; 11 (Suppl B):S4354.
  • 5
    http://www.who.int/tb/dots/en/ (accessed 2 January 2007).
  • 6
    Squire SB, Obasi A, Nhlema-Simwaka B. The Global Plan to Stop TB: a unique opportunity to address poverty and the Millennium Development Goals. Lancet 2006; 367:9557.
  • 7
    Trunz BB, Fine P, Dye C. Effect of BCG vaccination on childhood tuberculous meningitis and miliary tuberculosis worldwide: a meta-analysis and assessment of cost-effectiveness. Lancet 2006; 367:117380.
  • 8
    American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Targeted tuberculin testing and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection. This official statement of the American Thoracic Society was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, July 1999. This is a Joint Statement of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This statement was endorsed by the Council of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) September 1999 and the sections of this statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 161:S22147.
  • 9
    Manabe YC, Bishai WR. Latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis-persistence, patience, and winning by waiting. Nat Med 2000; 6:13279.
  • 10
    Cappelli G, Volpe P, Sanduzzi A, Sacchi A, Colizzi V, Mariani F. Human macrophage gamma interferon decreases gene expression but not replication of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: analysis of the host-pathogen reciprocal influence on transcription in a comparison of strains H37Rv and CMT97. Infect Immun 2001; 69:726270.
  • 11
    Monahan IM, Betts J, Banerjee DK, Butcher PD. Differential expression of mycobacterial proteins following phagocytosis by macrophages. Microbiology 2001; 147:45971.
  • 12
    Shi L, Jung YJ, Tyagi S, Gennaro ML, North RJ. Expression of Th1-mediated immunity in mouse lungs induces a Mycobacterium tuberculosis transcription pattern characteristic of nonreplicating persistence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100:2416.
  • 13
    Jones BE, Young SM, Antoniskis D, Davidson PT, Kramer F, Barnes PF. Relationship of the manifestations of tuberculosis to CD4 cell counts in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection. Am Rev Respir Dis 1993; 148:12927.
  • 14
    Barnes PF, Mehra V, Rivoire B, et al. Immunoreactivity of a 10-kDa antigen of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Immunol 1992; 148:183540.
  • 15
    Mehra V, Gong JH, Iyer D et al. Immune response to recombinant mycobacterial proteins in patients with tuberculosis infection and disease. J Infect Dis 1996; 174:4314.
  • 16
    Sanchez FO, Rodriguez JI, Agudelo G, Garcia LF. Immune responsiveness and lymphokine production in patients with tuberculosis and healthy controls. Infect Immun 1994; 6:56738.
  • 17
    Newport MJ, Huxley CM, Huston S et al. A mutation in the interferon-gamma-receptor gene and susceptibility to mycobacterial infection. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:19419.
  • 18
    Altare F, Durandy A, Lammas D et al. Impairment of mycobacterial immunity in human interleukin-12 receptor deficiency. Science 1998; 280:14325.
  • 19
    Altare F, Lammas D, Revy P et al. Inherited interleukin 12 deficiency in a child with bacille Calmette–Guerin and Salmonella enteritidis disseminated infection. J Clin Invest 1998; 102:203540.
  • 20
    Dorman SE, Picard C, Lammas D et al. Clinical features of dominant and recessive interferon gamma receptor 1 deficiencies. Lancet 2004; 364:211321.
  • 21
    Muller I, Cobbold SP, Waldmann H, Kaufmann SH. Impaired resistance to Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection after selective in vivo depletion of L3T4+ and Lyt-2+ T cells. Infect Immun 1987; 55:203741.
  • 22
    Orme IM, Collins FM. Protection against Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection by adoptive immunotherapy. Requirement for T cell-deficient recipients. J Exp Med 1983; 158 (1):7483.
  • 23
    Caruso AM, Serbina N, Klein E, Triebold K, Bloom BR, Flynn JL. Mice deficient in CD4 T cells have only transiently diminished levels of IFN-gamma, yet succumb to tuberculosis. J Immunol 1999; 162:540716.
  • 24
    Flynn JL, Chan J, Triebold KJ, Dalton DK, Stewart TA, Bloom BR. An essential role for interferon gamma in resistance to Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. J Exp Med 1993; 178:224954.
  • 25
    Wakeham J, Wang J, Magram J et al. Lack of both types 1 and 2 cytokines, tissue inflammatory responses, and immune protection during pulmonary infection by Mycobacterium bovis bacille Calmette–Guerin in IL-12-deficient mice. J Immunol 1998; 160:610111.
  • 26
    Xing Z, Wang J, Croitoru K, Wakeham J. Protection by CD4 or CD8 T cells against pulmonary Mycobacterium bovis bacillus Calmette–Guerin infection. Infect Immun 1998; 66:553742.
  • 27
    Mogues T, Goodrich ME, Ryan L, LaCourse R, North RJ. The relative importance of T cell subsets in immunity and immunopathology of airborne Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in mice. J Exp Med 2001; 193:27180.
  • 28
    Sousa AO, Mazzaccaro RJ, Russell RG, et al. Relative contributions of distinct MHC class I-dependent cell populations in protection to tuberculosis infection in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000; 97:42048.
  • 29
    Turner J, Gonzalez-Juarrero M, Saunders BM et al. Immunological basis for reactivation of tuberculosis in mice. Infect Immun 2001; 69:326470.
  • 30
    Van Pinxteren LA, Cassidy JP, Smedegaard BH, Agger EM, Andersen P. Control of latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection is dependent on CD8 T cells. Eur J Immunol 2000; 30:368998.
  • 31
    Bean AG, Roach DR, Briscoe H et al. Structural deficiencies in granuloma formation in TNF gene-targeted mice underlie the heightened susceptibility to aerosol Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection, which is not compensated for by lymphotoxin. J Immunol 1999; 162:350411.
  • 32
    Saunders BM, Cooper AM. Restraining mycobacteria: role of granulomas in mycobacterial infections. Immunol Cell Biol 2000; 78:33441.
  • 33
    Leal IS, Florido M, Andersen P, Appelberg R. Interleukin-6 regulates the phenotype of the immune response to a tuberculosis subunit vaccine. Immunology 2001; 103:37581.
  • 34
    Maeurer MJ, Trinder P, Hommel G et al. Interleukin-7 or interleukin-15 enhances survival of Mycobacterium tuberculosis-infected mice. Infect Immun 2000; 68:296270.
  • 35
    Baumann S, Eddine AN, Kaufmann SH. Progress in tuberculosis vaccine development. Curr Opin Immunol 2006; 18:43848.
  • 36
    North RJ. Mice incapable of making IL-4 or IL-10 display normal resistance to infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Clin Exp Immunol 1998; 113:558.
  • 37
    Turner J, Frank AA, Brooks JV, Gonzalez-Juarrero M, Orme IM. The progression of chronic tuberculosis in the mouse does not require the participation of B lymphocytes or interleukin-4. Exp Gerontol 2001; 36:53745.
  • 38
    Jung YJ, Ryan L, LaCourse R, North RJ. Increased interleukin-10 expression is not responsible for failure of T helper 1 immunity to resolve airborne Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in mice. Immunology 2003; 109:2959.
  • 39
    Turner J, Gonzalez-Juarrero M, Ellis DL et al. In vivo IL-10 production reactivates chronic pulmonary tuberculosis in C57BL/6 mice. J Immunol 2002; 169:634351.
  • 40
    Allen SS, Cassone L, Lasco TM, McMurray DN. Effect of neutralizing transforming growth factor beta1 on the immune response against Mycobacterium tuberculosis in guinea pigs. Infect Immun 2004; 72:135863.
  • 41
    Guyot-Revol V, Innes JA, Hackforth S, Hinks T, Lalvani A. Regulatory T cells are expanded in blood and disease sites in patients with tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006; 173:80310.
  • 42
    Bonecini-Almeida MG, Ho JL, Boechat N et al. Down-modulation of lung immune responses by interleukin-10 and transforming growth factor beta (TGF-beta) and analysis of TGF-beta receptors I and II in active tuberculosis. Infect Immun 2004; 72:262834.
  • 43
    Gardam MA, Keystone EC, Menzies R et al. Anti-tumour necrosis factor agents and tuberculosis risk: mechanisms of action and clinical management. Lancet Infect Dis 2003; 3:14855.
  • 44
    Huebner RE, Schein MF, Bass JB Jr. The tuberculin skin test. Clin Infect Dis 1993; 17:96875.
  • 45
    Cole ST, Brosch R, Parkhill J et al. Deciphering the biology of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from the complete genome sequence. Nature 1998; 39:53744.
  • 46
    Behr MA, Wilson MA, Gill WP et al. Comparative genomics of BCG vaccines by whole-genome DNA microarray. Science 1999; 284:15203.
  • 47
    Pai M, Kalantri S, Dheda K. New tools and emerging technologies for the diagnosis of tuberculosis: part I. Latent tuberculosis. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2006; 6:41322.
  • 48
    Demissie A, Abebe M, Aseffa A et al. Healthy individuals that control a latent infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis express high levels of Th1 cytokines and the IL-4 antagonist IL-4delta2. J Immunol 2004; 172:693843.
  • 49
    Demissie A, Leyten EM, Abebe M et al. Recognition of stage-specific mycobacterial antigens differentiates between acute and latent infections with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2006; 13:17986.
  • 50
    Fletcher HA, Owiafe P, Jeffries D et al. Increased expression of mRNA encoding interleukin (IL)-4 and its splice variant IL-4delta2 in cells from contacts of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, in the absence of in vitro stimulation. Immunology 2004; 112:66973.
  • 51
  • 52
    Ponnighaus JM, Fine PE, Sterne JA et al. Efficacy of BCG vaccine against leprosy and tuberculosis in northern Malawi. Lancet 1992; 339:6369.
  • 53
    Garly ML, Bale C, Martins CL, et al. BCG vaccination among West African infants is associated with less anergy to tuberculin and diphtheria–tetanus antigens. Vaccine 2001; 20:46874.
  • 54
    Roth A, Jensen H, Garly ML et al. Low birth weight infants and Calmette–Guerin bacillus vaccination at birth: community study from Guinea-Bissau. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2004; 23:54450.
  • 55
    Colditz GA, Brewer TF, Berkey CS et al. Efficacy of BCG vaccine in the prevention of tuberculosis. Meta-analysis of the published literature. JAMA 1994; 271:698702.
  • 56
    Palmer CE, Long MW. Effects of infection with atypical mycobacteria on BCG vaccination and tuberculosis. Am Rev Respir Dis 1966; 94:55368.
  • 57
    Brandt L, Feino Cunha J, Weinreich Olsen A et al. Failure of the Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccine: some species of environmental mycobacteria block multiplication of BCG and induction of protective immunity to tuberculosis. Infect Immun 2002; 70:6728.
  • 58
    Weir RE, Fine PE, Nazareth B et al. Interferon-gamma and skin test responses of schoolchildren in southeast England to purified protein derivatives from Mycobacterium tuberculosis and other species of mycobacteria. Clin Exp Immunol 2003; 134:28594.
  • 59
    Orme IM. Beyond BCG: the potential for a more effective TB vaccine. Mol Med Today 1999; 5:48792.
  • 60
    Soysal A, Millington KA, Bakir M et al. Effect of BCG vaccination on risk of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in children with household tuberculosis contact: a prospective community-based study. Lancet 2005; 366:144351.
  • 61
    Black GF, Weir RE, Floyd S et al. BCG-induced increase in interferon-gamma response to mycobacterial antigens and efficacy of BCG vaccination in Malawi and the UK: two randomised controlled studies. Lancet 2002; 359:1393401.
  • 62
    Smith SM, Malin AS, Pauline Lukey T et al. Characterization of human Mycobacterium bovis bacille Calmette–Guerin-reactive CD8+ T cells. Infect Immun 1999; 67:522330.
  • 63
    Worku S, Hoft DF. Differential effects of control and antigen-specific T cells on intracellular mycobacterial growth. Infect Immun 2003; 71:176373.
  • 64
    Hanekom WA. The immune response to BCG vaccination of newborns. Ann NY Acad Sci 2005; 1062:6978.
  • 65
    Hanekom WA, Gelderbloem S, Joseph S et al. Immune correlates of protection against TB following newborn vaccination with BCG. TB Vaccines for the World, Vienna meeting 2006.
  • 66
    Rodrigues LC, Pereira SM, Cunha SS et al. Effect of BCG revaccination on incidence of tuberculosis in school-aged children in Brazil: the BCG–REVAC cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 2005; 366:12905.
  • 67
    Schneider J, Gilbert SC, Blanchard TJ et al. Enhanced immunogenicity for CD8+ T cell induction and complete protective efficacy of malaria DNA vaccination by boosting with modified vaccinia virus Ankara. Nat Med 1998; 4:397402.
  • 68
    McConkey SJ, Reece WH, Moorthy VS et al. Enhanced T-cell immunogenicity of plasmid DNA vaccines boosted by recombinant modified vaccinia virus Ankara in humans. Nat Med 2003; 9:72935.
  • 69
    McShane H, Brookes R, Gilbert SC, Hill AV. Enhanced immunogenicity of CD4(+) T-cell responses and protective efficacy of a DNA-modified vaccinia virus Ankara prime-boost vaccination regimen for murine tuberculosis. Infect Immun 2001; 69:6816.
  • 70
    Goonetilleke NP, McShane H, Hannan CM, Anderson RJ, Brookes RH, Hill AV. Enhanced immunogenicity and protective efficacy against Mycobacterium tuberculosis of bacille Calmette–Guerin vaccine using mucosal administration and boosting with a recombinant modified vaccinia virus Ankara. J Immunol 2003; 171:16029.
  • 71
    Williams A, Goonetilleke NP, McShane H et al. Boosting with poxviruses enhances Mycobacterium bovis BCG efficacy against tuberculosis in guinea pigs. Infect Immun 2005; 73:381416.
  • 72
    Grode L, Seiler P, Baumann S et al. Increased vaccine efficacy against tuberculosis of recombinant Mycobacterium bovis bacille Calmette–Guerin mutants that secrete listeriolysin. J Clin Invest 2005; 115:24729.
  • 73
    Horwitz MA. Recombinant BCG expressing Mycobacterium tuberculosis major extracellular proteins. Microbes Infect 2005; 7:94754.
  • 74
    Horwitz MA, Harth G. A new vaccine against tuberculosis affords greater survival after challenge than the current vaccine in the guinea pig model of pulmonary tuberculosis. Infect Immun 2003; 71:16729.
  • 75
    Skeiky YA, Sadoff JC. Advances in tuberculosis vaccine strategies. Nat Rev Microbiol 2006; 4:46976.
  • 76
    Pym AS, Brodin P, Majlessi L et al. Recombinant BCG exporting ESAT-6 confers enhanced protection against tuberculosis. Nat Med 2003; 9:5339.
  • 77
    Pym AS, Brodin P, Brosch R, Huerre M, Cole ST. Loss of RD1 contributed to the attenuation of the live tuberculosis vaccines Mycobacterium bovis BCG and Mycobacterium microti. Mol Microbiol 2002; 46:70917.
  • 78
    Kamath AT, Fruth U, Brennan MJ et al. New live mycobacterial vaccines: the Geneva consensus on essential steps towards clinical development. Vaccine 2005; 23:375361.
  • 79
    Sambandamurthy VK, Derrick SC, Jalapathy KV et al. Long-term protection against tuberculosis following vaccination with a severely attenuated double lysine and pantothenate auxotroph of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Infect Immun 2005; 73:1196203.
  • 80
    Sambandamurthy VK, Jacobs WR, Jr. Live attenuated mutants of Mycobacterium tuberculosis as candidate vaccines against tuberculosis. Microbes Infect 2005; 7:95561.
  • 81
    Sambandamurthy VK, Wang X, Chen B et al. A pantothenate auxotroph of Mycobacterium tuberculosis is highly attenuated and protects mice against tuberculosis. Nat Med 2002; 8:11714.
  • 82
    Huygen K, Content J, Denis O et al. Immunogenicity and protective efficacy of a tuberculosis DNA vaccine. Nat Med 1996; 2:8938.
  • 83
    Baldwin SL, D'Souza C, Roberts AD et al. Evaluation of new vaccines in the mouse and guinea pig model of tuberculosis. Infect Immun 1998; 66:29519.
  • 84
    Skjot RL, Brock I, Arend SM et al. Epitope mapping of the immunodominant antigen TB10.4 and the two homologous proteins TB10.3 and TB12.9, which constitute a subfamily of the esat-6 gene family. Infect Immun 2002; 70:544653.
  • 85
    Skjot RL, Oettinger T, Rosenkrands I et al. Comparative evaluation of low-molecular-mass proteins from Mycobacterium tuberculosis identifies members of the ESAT-6 family as immunodominant T-cell antigens. Infect Immun 2000; 68:21420.
  • 86
    Alderson MR, Bement T, Day CH et al. Expression cloning of an immunodominant family of Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens using human CD4(+) T cells. J Exp Med 2000; 191:55160.
  • 87
    Dillon DC, Alderson MR, Day CH et al. Molecular characterization and human T-cell responses to a member of a novel Mycobacterium tuberculosis mtb39 gene family. Infect Immun 1999; 67:294150.
  • 88
    Skeiky YA, Ovendale PJ, S Jen et al. T cell expression cloning of a Mycobacterium tuberculosis gene encoding a protective antigen associated with the early control of infection. J Immunol 2000; 165:71409.
  • 89
    Wang J, Thorson L, Stokes RW et al. Single mucosal, but not parenteral, immunization with recombinant adenoviral-based vaccine provides potent protection from pulmonary tuberculosis. J Immunol 2004; 173:635765.
  • 90
    Skeiky Y, Radosevic K, Vogels R et al. Development of a BCG prime-recombinant Ad35-tuberculosis booster vaccine strategy. TB Vaccines for the World, Vienna meeting 2006.
  • 91
    Nwanegbo E, Vardas E, Gao W, et al. Prevalence of neutralizing antibodies to adenoviral serotypes 5 and 35 in the adult populations of The Gambia, South Africa, and the United States. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2004; 1:3517.
  • 92
    Roberts DM, Nanda A, Havenga MJ et al. Hexon-chimaeric adenovirus serotype 5 vectors circumvent pre-existing anti-vector immunity. Nature 2006; 44:23943.
  • 93
    Brandt L, Skeiky YA, Alderson MR et al. The protective effect of the Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccine is increased by coadministration with the Mycobacterium tuberculosis 72-kilodalton fusion polyprotein Mtb72F in M. tuberculosis-infected guinea pigs. Infect Immun 2004; 72:662232.
  • 94
    Skeiky YA, Alderson MR, Ovendale PJ et al. Differential immune responses and protective efficacy induced by components of a tuberculosis polyprotein vaccine, Mtb72F, delivered as naked DNA or recombinant protein. J Immunol 2004; 172:761828.
  • 95
    Leroux-Roels I, Leroux-Roels G, Clement F et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the Mtb72F/ASO2A tuberculosis vaccine in PPD negative Belgian adults. TB Vaccines for the World, Vienna meeting 2006.
  • 96
    Olsen AW, Williams A, Okkels LM, Hatch G, Andersen P. Protective effect of a tuberculosis subunit vaccine based on a fusion of antigen 85B and ESAT-6 in the aerosol guinea pig model. Infect Immun 2004; 72:614850.
  • 97
    McShane H, Pathan AA, Sander CR et al. Recombinant modified vaccinia virus Ankara expressing antigen 85A boosts BCG-primed and naturally acquired antimycobacterial immunity in humans. Nat Med 2004; 10:12404.
  • 98
    Williams A, Hatch GJ, Clark SO et al. Evaluation of vaccines in the EU TB vaccine cluster using a guinea pig aerosol infection model of tuberculosis. Tuberculosis (Edinb) 2005; 85:2938.
  • 99
    Capuano SV III, Croix DA, Pawar S et al. Experimental Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection of cynomolgus macaques closely resembles the various manifestations of human M. tuberculosis infection. Infect Immun 2003; 71:583144.
  • 100
    Hewinson RG, Vordermeier HM, Buddle BM. Use of the bovine model of tuberculosis for the development of improved vaccines and diagnostics. Tuberculosis (Edinb) 2003; 83:11930.
  • 101
    Kraft SL, Dailey D, Kovach M et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of pulmonary lesions in guinea pigs infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Infect Immun 2004; 72:596371.
  • 102
    McCune RM, Feldmann FM, Lambert HP, McDermott W. Microbial persistence. I. The capacity of tubercle bacilli to survive sterilization in mouse tissues. J Exp Med 1966; 123:44568.
  • 103
    McCune RM, Feldmann FM, McDermott W. Microbial persistence. II. Characteristics of the sterile state of tubercle bacilli. J Exp Med 1966; 123:46986.
  • 104
    Rees RJ, Hart PD. Analysis of the host-parasite equilibrium in chronic murine tuberculosis by total and viable bacillary counts. Br J Exp Pathol 1961; 42:838.
  • 105
    Botha T, Ryffel B. Reactivation of latent tuberculosis by an inhibitor of inducible nitric oxide synthase in an aerosol murine model. Immunology 2002; 107:3507.
  • 106
    Scanga CA, Mohan VP, Joseph H, Yu K, Chan J, Flynn JL. Reactivation of latent tuberculosis: variations on the Cornell murine model. Infect Immun 1999; 67:45318.
  • 107
    Elias D, Akuffo H, Thors C, Pawlowski A, Britton S. Low dose chronic Schistosoma mansoni infection increases susceptibility to Mycobacterium bovis BCG infection in mice. Clin Exp Immunol 2005; 139:398404.
  • 108
  • 109
    Koch R. Forsetzung der Mitteilungen uber ein Heilmittel gegen Tuberkulose. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1891; 17:1012.
  • 110
    Taylor JL, Turner OC, Basaraba RJ, Belisle JT, Huygen K, Orme IM. Pulmonary necrosis resulting from DNA vaccination against tuberculosis. Infect Immun 2003; 71:21928.
  • 111
    McShane H, Pathan AA, Sander CR, Goonetilleke NP, Fletcher HA, Hill AV. Boosting BCG with MVA85A: the first candidate subunit vaccine for tuberculosis in clinical trials. Tuberculosis (Edinb) 2005; 85:4752.
  • 112
    Gorak-Stolinska P, Weir RE, Floyd S et al. Immunogenicity of Danish-SSI 1331 BCG vaccine in the UK: comparison with Glaxo-Evans 1077 BCG vaccine. Vaccine 2006; 24:572633.
  • 113
    Hanekom WA, Hughes J, Mavinkurve M et al. Novel application of a whole blood intracellular cytokine detection assay to quantitate specific T-cell frequency in field studies. J Immunol Meth 2004; 291:18595.