Home Search Abstracts View Session E-mail Abstract Author


Session 22 Oral Abstracts
Immunological Correlates of Protection: What Works and What Doesn't
Session Day and Time: Tuesday, 10 am - 12:30 pm
Presentation Time: 10:30 am
Room: Ballroom 5-6


93
Non-neutralizing Antibody that Prevents SIV Infection in Neonatal Rhesus Macaques Potently Inhibits SIV in the Presence of Rhesus Macaque Effector Cells
Donald Forthal*1, G Landucci1, K Stefano Cole2, J Becerra1, M Marthas3, and K Van Rompay3
1Univ of California Sch of Med, Irvine, US; 2Univ of Pittsburgh Sch of Med, PA, US; and 3California Natl Primate Res Ctr, Univ of California, Davis, US

Background:  Simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) hyperimmune serum (HIS), pooled from adult neonatal rhesus macaques (rhM) immunized with SIVmac1A11, prevents infection of newborn rhM after oral challenge with pathogenic SIVmac251. However, SIV-HIS does not neutralize the challenge strain, and the correlate of protection is unknown. We determined whether SIV-HIS could inhibit virus in the presence of rh peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) effector cells. We also determined the anti-viral activity of 3 non-neutralizing rhM monoclonal antibodies.

Methods:  CD8-depleted rh PBMC target cells were infected with SIVmac251 for 48 hours, washed, and mixed with serial dilutions of SIV-HIS, SIV-IgG, or SIV-F(ab’)2. Autologous rh PBMC effector cells were then added at various E:T ratios. Five days later, p27 was measured in supernatant fluid by ELISA. To determine which specific cells among the rh PBMC were acting as effector cells, rh PBMC were depleted of CD8 or CD14+ cells. As above, 3 rhM monoclonal antibodies (3.10A, 3.11E, and C26) were tested, except that target cells consisted of SIVmac251-infected CEM x 174 cells and effector cells were hu PBMC. 

Results:  In the absence of effector cells, SIV-HIS had little inhibitory activity against SIVmac251, consistent with its poor neutralizing activity. However, in the presence of rh PBMC effector cells, there was inhibition of virus yield at dilutions as high as 1:12,800. SIV-IgG (made from SIV-HIS) inhibited virus in the presence of rh PBMC at concentrations as low as 2 μg/mL, whereas its F(ab’)2 had little activity. CD14+ cells (monocytes) were consistently involved as effector cells of anti-viral activity; CD8+ cells (likely natural killer cells) acted as effector cells in PBMC from some animals, but not from others. Monoclonal antibodies 3.10A and 3.11E, neither of which neutralizes SIVmac251, gave means of 80% and 91% inhibition of SIVmac251, respectively, at 20 μg/mL in the presence of hu PBMC effector cells. C26, which does not neutralize SIVmac251, did not inhibit SIVmac251 in the presence of hu PBMC.

Conclusions:  These results demonstrate, for the first time, that antibodies that do not neutralize pathogenic strains of SIV may nonetheless have potent anti-viral activity mediated by interactions between antibody Fc and Fc receptors on rhesus macaque cells, such as monocytes and natural killer cells. Since infusion of SIV-HIS prevents SIVmac251 infection in the absence of neutralizing activity, these results suggest that antibody-dependent, cell-mediated virus inhibition is a protective immune function against primate lentivirus infection.