Longitudinal Study of Primary HIV-1 Isolates in Drug-Naïve Individuals Reveals the Emergence of Variants Sensitive to Anti-HIV-1 Monoclonal Antibodies

To study how virus evolution affects neutralization sensitivity and to determine changes that occur in and around epitopes, we tested the ability of 13 anti-HIV-1 gp120 (anti-V2, anti-V3, anti-CD4bd and anti-carbohydrate) human monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to neutralize sequential viruses obtained from five HIV-1 chronically infected drug naïve individuals. Overall, primary viruses collected from patients at first visit were resistant to neutralization by all anti-HIV-1 mAbs with the exception of one virus sensitive to IgG1b12. Four of the five patients' viruses evolved increased sensitivity to neutralization by anti-V3 mAbs. Virus collected from a patient obtained 31 months later, evolved increased sensitivity to anti-V2, anti-V3, and anti-CD4bd mAbs. Furthermore, the anti-V2 and anti-CD4bd mAbs also exhibited increased neutralization capacities against virus collected from a patient 29 months later. Of the seven anti-V3 mAbs, five showed increased potency to neutralize the evolved virus from a patient collected after 11 months, and three exhibited increased potency against viruses from two patients collected 29 and 36 months later. Anti-V3 mAbs exhibited the most breadth and potency in neutralizing the evolving viruses. Sequence analysis of the envelope regions revealed amino acid conservation within the V3 loop, while most of the changes identified occurred outside the core epitopes and in particular within the C3 region; these may account for increased neutralization sensitivity. These studies demonstrate that in vivo, HIV-1 can evolve increased neutralization sensitivity to mAbs and that the spectrum of neutralization capacities by mAbs can be broader when studied in longitudinal analysis

Limited Neutralizing Antibody Specificities Drive Neutralization Escape in Early HIV-1 Subtype C Infection

We previously showed that HIV-1 subtype C viruses elicit potent but highly type-specific neutralizing antibodies (nAb) within the first year of infection. In order to determine the specificity and evolution of these autologous nAbs, we examined neutralization escape in four individuals whose responses against the earliest envelope differed in magnitude and potency. Neutralization escape occurred in all participants, with later viruses showing decreased sensitivity to contemporaneous sera, although they retained sensitivity to new nAb responses. Early nAb responses were very restricted, occurring sequentially and targeting only two regions of the envelope. In V1V2, limited amino acid changes often involving indels or glycans, mediated partial or complete escape, with nAbs targeting the V1V2 region directly in 2 cases. The alpha-2 helix of C3 was also a nAb target, with neutralization escape associated with changes to positively charged residues. In one individual, relatively high titers of anti-C3 nAbs were required to drive genetic escape, taking up to 7 weeks for the resistant variant to predominate. Thereafter titers waned but were still measurable. Development of this single anti-C3 nAb specificity was associated with a 7-fold drop in HIV-1 viral load and a 4-fold rebound as the escape mutation emerged. Overall, our data suggest the development of a very limited number of neutralizing antibody specificities during the early stages of HIV-1 subtype C infection, with temporal fluctuations in specificities as escape occurs. While the mechanism of neutralization escape appears to vary between individuals, the involvement of limited regions suggests there might be common vulnerabilities in the HIV-1 subtype C transmitted envelope

International Network for Comparison of HIV Neutralization Assays: The NeutNet Report

BACKGROUND: Neutralizing antibody assessments play a central role in human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1) vaccine development but it is unclear which assay, or combination of assays, will provide reliable measures of correlates of protection. To address this, an international collaboration (NeutNet) involving 18 independent participants was organized to compare different assays. METHODS: Each laboratory evaluated four neutralizing reagents (TriMab, 447-52D, 4E10, sCD4) at a given range of concentrations against a panel of 11 viruses representing a wide range of genetic subtypes and phenotypes. A total of 16 different assays were compared. The assays utilized either uncloned virus produced in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) (virus infectivity assays, VI assays), or their Env-pseudotyped (gp160) derivatives produced in 293T cells (PSV assays) from molecular clones or uncloned virus. Target cells included PBMC and genetically-engineered cell lines in either a single- or multiple-cycle infection format. Infection was quantified by using a range of assay read-outs that included extracellular or intracellular p24 antigen detection, RNA quantification and luciferase and beta-galactosidase reporter gene expression. FINDINGS: PSV assays were generally more sensitive than VI assays, but there were important differences according to the virus and inhibitor used. For example, for TriMab, the mean IC50 was always lower in PSV than in VI assays. However, with 4E10 or sCD4 some viruses were neutralized with a lower IC50 in VI assays than in the PSV assays. Inter-laboratory concordance was slightly better for PSV than for VI assays with some viruses, but for other viruses agreement between laboratories was limited and depended on both the virus and the neutralizing reagent. CONCLUSIONS: The NeutNet project demonstrated clear differences in assay sensitivity that were dependent on both the neutralizing reagent and the virus. No single assay was capable of detecting the entire spectrum of neutralizing activities. Since it is not known which in vitro assay correlates with in vivo protection, a range of neutralization assays is recommended for vaccine evaluation

R5 Clade C SHIV Strains with Tier 1 or 2 Neutralization Sensitivity: Tools to Dissect Env Evolution and to Develop AIDS Vaccines in Primate Models

Background: HIV-1 clade C (HIV-C) predominates worldwide, and anti-HIV-C vaccines are urgently needed. Neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses are considered important but have proved difficult to elicit. Although some current immunogens elicit antibodies that neutralize highly neutralization-sensitive (tier 1) HIV strains, most circulating HIVs exhibiting a less sensitive (tier 2) phenotype are not neutralized. Thus, both tier 1 and 2 viruses are needed for vaccine discovery in nonhuman primate models. Methodology/Principal Findings: We constructed a tier 1 simian-human immunodeficiency virus, SHIV-1157ipEL, by inserting an “early,” recently transmitted HIV-C env into the SHIV-1157ipd3N4 backbone [1] encoding a “late” form of the same env, which had evolved in a SHIV-infected rhesus monkey (RM) with AIDS. SHIV-1157ipEL was rapidly passaged to yield SHIV-1157ipEL-p, which remained exclusively R5-tropic and had a tier 1 phenotype, in contrast to “late” SHIV-1157ipd3N4 (tier 2). After 5 weekly low-dose intrarectal exposures, SHIV-1157ipEL-p systemically infected 16 out of 17 RM with high peak viral RNA loads and depleted gut CD4$^+$ T cells. SHIV-1157ipEL-p and SHIV-1157ipd3N4 env genes diverge mostly in V1/V2. Molecular modeling revealed a possible mechanism for the increased neutralization resistance of SHIV-1157ipd3N4 Env: V2 loops hindering access to the CD4 binding site, shown experimentally with nAb b12. Similar mutations have been linked to decreased neutralization sensitivity in HIV-C strains isolated from humans over time, indicating parallel HIV-C Env evolution in humans and RM. Conclusions/Significance: SHIV-1157ipEL-p, the first tier 1 R5 clade C SHIV, and SHIV-1157ipd3N4, its tier 2 counterpart, represent biologically relevant tools for anti-HIV-C vaccine development in primates

Functional adaptation of bone: The mechanostat and beyond

The conceptual model of the mechanostat proposed by Harold Frost in 1983 is among the most significant contributions to musculoskeletal research today. This model states that bone and other musculoskeletal tissues including cartilage, tendon and muscle respond to habitual exercise/loading and that changes in the loading environment lead to adequate structural adaptation of (bone) tissue architecture. The analogy with a thermostat clearly indicates presence of a physiological feedback system which is able to adjust bone mass and structure according to the engendered loads. In the bioengineering community, the mechanostat has been mathematically formulated as a feedback algorithm using a set point criterion based on a particular mechanical quantity such as strain, strain energy density among others. As pointed out by Lanyon and Skerry, while it is widely thought that in a single individual, there exists a single mechanostat set point, this view is flawed by the fact that different bones throughout the skeleton require a specific strain magnitude to maintain bone mass. Consequently, different bones respond differently to increases or decreases in loading depending on the sensitivity of the mechanostat. Osteocytes, i.e., cells embedded in the bone matrix are believed to be the major bone cells involved in sensing and transduction of mechanical loads. The purpose of this chapter is to review the concept of the mechanostat and its role in bone pathophysiology. To do this we provide examples of why and how the skeleton responds to complex loading stimuli made up of numerous different parameters including strain magnitude, frequency and rest intervals among others. We describe latest in vivo and ex vivo loading models, which allow exploration of various mechanobiological relations in the mechanostat model utilising controlled mechanical environments. A review of the bone cells and signalling transduction cascades involved in mechanosensation and bone adaptation will also be provided. Furthermore, we will discuss the mechanostat in a clinical context, e.g., how factors such as sex, age, genetic constitution, concomitant disease, nutrient availability, and exposure to drugs all affect bone’s response to mechanical loading. Understanding the mechanostat and mechanobiological regulatory factors involved in mechanosensation and desensitisation is essential for our ability to control bone mass based on physiological loading, either directly through different exercise regimens, or by manipulating bone cells in a targeted manner using tailored site and individual specific stimuli including pharmaceuticals