• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Adenoviral vectors are the new COVID-19 vaccine front-runners. Can they overcome their checkered past?

Emily

Editor, Senior Moderator
https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/...OVID-19/98/i19
Adenoviral vectors are the new COVID-19 vaccine front-runners. Can they overcome their checkered past?

CanSino Biologics, Johnson & Johnson, and the University of Oxford are all using genetically engineered common cold viruses to make COVID-19 vaccines. The technology is more than 30 years in the making, but it’s yet to yield an effective vaccine for humans

by Ryan Cross
May 12, 2020 | APPEARED IN VOLUME 98, ISSUE 19
...

From failed gene therapy to vaccine

Adenovirus vaccines might be grabbing the limelight amid the coronavirus pandemic, but they have a checkered past.
....

The large dose of 38 trillion viruses the patient was given sparked massive body-wide inflammation and sent his immune system into overdrive. After that, scientists mostly stopped using adenoviral vectors for gene therapy, in which the dose needs to be high to reach many cells of the body.

But vaccine developers viewed adenovirus-induced inflammation as an asset.

“There is an expression out there that a failed gene therapy makes a good vaccine,” says Luk Vandenberghe, a viral vector expert at Harvard Medical School.


One attractive feature is that adenoviruses’ inflammatory effects mean developers don’t have to use adjuvants, molecules added to conventional vaccines to direct the immune system’s attention to the viral protein. The adenoviruses themselves drive the inflammation, which is kept under control by giving the vaccines at low doses.
...

Traditional vaccines, made from weakened viruses or viral proteins, stimulate B cells to make antibodies against the virus. Those antibodies latch onto invading viruses and prevent them from entering our cells.

The problem is that once the virus infiltrates our cells, the antibodies from a traditional vaccine are useless. It’s at that stage that T cells need to swoop in. Adenovirus vectors “are the best of all vaccines at inducing a T-cell response,” Wistar’s Ertl says.

That’s why some vaccine developers turned to adenoviral vectors in the early 2000s to tackle diseases, such as AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, caused by pathogens that hide out in cells. The largest, and most infamous, effort was led by Merck & Co., which had developed an Ad5-based vaccine for HIV. Two large clinical trials were halted early in 2007 when it became clear that the vaccine was not working—and, alarmingly, may have even increased the risk of HIV infections in a subset of people with preexisting immunity to Ad5.

“That put a big kibosh on adenoviruses for the next 5 years,” Vaccitech’s Evans says...
 
While all of Emily's opening post is true I do not think it relevant to Ad vectored vaccines for SARS-CoV-2. Using large quantities for gene therapy caused a huge immune response but would not apply here. HIV is a very different beast and targets immune cells directly. When Ad5 was used as a vector it generated a strong HIV immune response but vaccinated individuals who subsequently got an HIV infection got little or no protection. This is probably a problem relating to Ad5 and HIV and is a valid concern, not particularly for this vaccine, but for HIV and anyone who has had Ad5 immunity either from natural infection or an Ad5 based vaccine. It may be wise to use some other vaccine platform for HIV patients and others at high risk of HIV infection in the future.
A fuller explanation can be found in this Lancet article written by some of those involved in the original Ad5 HIV trial.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...156-5/fulltext
 
I think my bigger concern over attenuated live vaccines is the risk that mutations during production could overcome the attenuation OR that a vaccine is given to someone with an active compatible infection, allowing recombination or similar, and resulting in allowance of the vaccine strain to replicate in the host. It happened with an attenuated polio vaccine and one that was developed for typhoid (which I worked on over 30 years ago). Both had to be withdrawn from market. I don't know how the attenuation process has been designed in this case, but it has to be a risk? Perhaps better ways have been found to ensure the attenuation persists in more recent years?
 
I think this should not be a problem. The ones I know of use replication incompetent Ad. Using CRISPR CAS gene editing the viral genome has sections removed that stop it from replicating and in their place the SARS spike NT sequence is inserted. To grow up the virus to make these vaccines it has to be grown in a medium that supplies the product which the deletions removed. This leaves the virus able to infect one cell and make its proteins - including the SARS S protein - but can not make new replication competent virions so infection is limited to cells directly infected by the vaccine. Once the Spike mRNA is created it can go on churning out Spike protein until the cell degrades it. The immune response is to the mix of native Ad and added Spike protein. In the Astrazeneca vaccine they used the same Chimpanzee Ad for shots one and two (humans will not have meet this so for the first shot should not have any pre-existing immunity) but seems to be causing a problem as the immune system is reacting rapidly to the second Chimp Ad challenge which is swamping the Spike reaction we were trying to provoke. The Sputnik 5 vaccine is very similar but they anticipated this problem and used two different Ad strains (picked for relatively low cross reactivity) for the first and second shot. The two companies are now looking at a deal to use the three different version (AZ, Sputnik shot 1 and Sputnik shot 2) to get the most effective pairing using two of the three.

The AZ problem seems to add weight to the statements in Emily's post describing how good Ad is at bringing on an immune response, which makes it such a good adjuvant. Unfortunately for AZ this is too strong after the second shot and is eclipsing the immune response we wanted to the added Spike.

I do not know about the Typhoid vaccine but in Polio it is a live attenuated rather than a replication incompetent formulation, or at least it was. On vaccination the patient becomes immune to future infection by the wild type form but the attenuated virus can continue to replicate in the gut and be excreted. If the whole local population was not reached then the unvaccinated can be infected by this weakened strain allowing it to spread further. Over the generations of reproduction it will begin to revert to the wild type hence the problem. There is a new vaccine which should solve that problem.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Jackson - a very clear explanation. The Typhoid vaccine was one called Vivotif just FYI. It was supposed to be replication incompetent, and I suspect that lessons were learned from it - it was a long time ago! But good to have the reassurance on this..
 
I found JJackson's post reassuring, too, as far as the engineered vector vaccine viruses being more stable than the attenuated viruses. I hoped that was the case.
My concern with the chimpanzee adenovirus would be cancer.

https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...873-3468.13717
Cell transformation by the adenovirus oncogenes E1 and E4
Wing Hang Ip
Thomas Dobner

First published: 10 December 2019
https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.13717
Edited by Urs Greber

...It is estimated that ~ 12% of human cancers worldwide have a viral etiology. Tumorigenesis induced by a viral infection has been shown to be slow and inefficient, usually with tumors developing in only a minority of infected individuals years or decades after primary infection. Therefore, most viruses do not cause cancer in their native host, but many can cause cancer in hosts where they persist or are replication‐defective. Hence, after the first report from Trentin and coworkers showing that human adenovirus type 12 (HAdV‐A12) can induce malignant tumors following inoculation into newborn hamsters, adenoviruses have not been shown to induce cancer in its natural host [1]
 
Back
Top Bottom