Analyses of human vaccine-specific circulating and bone marrow-resident B cell populations reveal benefit of delayed vaccine booster dosing with blood-stage malaria antigens

We have previously reported primary endpoints of a clinical trial testing two vaccine platforms for the delivery of Plasmodium vivax malaria DBPRII: viral vectors (ChAd63, MVA), and protein/adjuvant (PvDBPII with 50µg Matrix-M™ adjuvant). Delayed boosting was necessitated due to trial halts during the pandemic and provides an opportunity to investigate the impact of dosing regimens. Here, using flow cytometry – including agnostic definition of B cell populations with the clustering tool CITRUS – we report enhanced induction of DBPRII-specific plasma cell and memory B cell responses in protein/adjuvant versus viral vector vaccinees. Within protein/adjuvant groups, delayed boosting further improved B cell immunogenicity compared to a monthly boosting regimen. Consistent with this, delayed boosting also drove more durable anti-DBPRII serum IgG. In an independent vaccine clinical trial with the P. falciparum malaria RH5.1 protein/adjuvant (50µg Matrix-M™) vaccine candidate, we similarly observed enhanced circulating B cell responses in vaccinees receiving a delayed final booster. Notably, a higher frequency of vaccine-specific (putatively long-lived) plasma cells was detected in the bone marrow of these delayed boosting vaccinees by ELISPOT and correlated strongly with serum IgG. Finally, following controlled human malaria infection with P. vivax parasites in the DBPRII trial, in vivo growth inhibition was observed to correlate with DBPRII-specific B cell and serum IgG responses. In contrast, the CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses were impacted by vaccine platform but not dosing regimen and did not correlate with in vivo growth inhibition in a challenge model. Taken together, our DBPRII and RH5 data suggest an opportunity for protein/adjuvant dosing regimen optimisation in the context of rational vaccine development against pathogens where protection is antibody-mediated

Vaccination with Plasmodium vivax Duffy-binding protein inhibits parasite growth during controlled human malaria infection

There are no licensed vaccines against Plasmodium vivax. We conducted two phase 1/2a clinical trials to assess two vaccines targeting P. vivax Duffy-binding protein region II (PvDBPII). Recombinant viral vaccines using chimpanzee adenovirus 63 (ChAd63) and modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) vectors as well as a protein and adjuvant formulation (PvDBPII/Matrix-M) were tested in both a standard and a delayed dosing regimen. Volunteers underwent controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) after their last vaccination, alongside unvaccinated controls. Efficacy was assessed by comparisons of parasite multiplication rates in the blood. PvDBPII/Matrix-M, given in a delayed dosing regimen, elicited the highest antibody responses and reduced the mean parasite multiplication rate after CHMI by 51% (n = 6) compared with unvaccinated controls (n = 13), whereas no other vaccine or regimen affected parasite growth. Both viral-vectored and protein vaccines were well tolerated and elicited expected, short-lived adverse events. Together, these results support further clinical evaluation of the PvDBPII/Matrix-M P. vivax vaccine

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

GSR signals features extraction for emotion recognition

Over the years, the recognition of emotion has become more efficient, diverse, and easily accessible. In general, emotion recognition is conducted in four main steps which are signal acquisition, preprocessing, feature extraction, and classification. Galvanic skin response (GSR) is the autonomic activation of sweat glands in the skin when an individual gets triggered through emotional stimulation. The paper provides an overview of emotion recognition, GSR signals, and how GSR signals are analyzed for emotion recognition. The focus of this research is on the performance of feature extraction of GSR signals. Therefore, related sources were identified using combinations of keywords and terms such as feature extraction, emotion recognition, and galvanic skin response. Existing emotion recognition methods were investigated which focused more on the different feature extraction methods. Research conducted has shown that feature extraction method in time–frequency domain has the best accuracy rate overall compared to time domain and frequency domain. Current GSR-based technology also has the potential to be improved more toward the implementation of a more efficient and reliable emotion recognition system

GSR Signals Features Extraction for Emotion Recognition

Over the years, the recognition of emotion has become more efficient, diverse, and easily accessible. In general, emotion recognition is conducted in four main steps which are signal acquisition, preprocessing, feature extraction, and classification. Galvanic skin response (GSR) is the autonomic activation of sweat glands in the skin when an individual gets triggered through emotional stimulation. The paper provides an overview of emotion recognition, GSR signals, and how GSR signals are analyzed for emotion recognition. The focus of this research is on the performance of feature extraction of GSR signals. Therefore, related sources were identified using combinations of keywords and terms such as feature extraction, emotion recognition, and galvanic skin response. Existing emotion recognition methods were investigated which focused more on the different feature extraction methods. Research conducted has shown that feature extraction method in time–frequency domain has the best accuracy rate overall compared to time domain and frequency domain. Current GSR-based technology also has the potential to be improved more toward the implementation of a more efficient and reliable emotion recognition system

Effects of PfRH5 and PfCyRPA antibodies upon the efficiency with which merozoites convert into ring or pseudo-ring stage parasites shown in S4 Fig.

Table A, Egress to start of spinning. Table B, Duration of spinning. Table C, End of spinning to first pseudopod visible. Table D, Pseudopod first visible to pre-ring formation. Table E, Pre-ring formation to complete ring formation. (XLSX)</p

Live cell video of <i>Plasmodium falciparum</i> merozoites egressing from schizont in the presence of R5.008 IgG at 40 μg/mL.

Successful invasions are indicated with white arrows and black arrows indicate selected extracellular merozoites that begin to differentiate into pseudo-rings beginning about 5 minutes and 40 seconds after egress. Video playback is 10x live imaging speed. (AVI)</p

Live cell video of <i>Plasmodium falciparum</i> merozoites egressing from schizont in the presence of Cy.007 Fab at 400 μg/mL.

No merozoite invasions were observed and most extracellular merozoites did not change during the 10 minute imaging period. Video playback is 10x live imaging speed. (AVI)</p

Quantification of the effects of antibodies to PfRH5 and PfCyRPA upon the invasion of RBCs by <i>Plasmodium falciparum</i> 3D7 merozoites.

Video microscopy of several merozoite egress events was observed in the presence of antibodies with concentrations in μg/mL indicated in brackets. (A) The times from egress to first contact indicate were not significantly different indicating the imaging conditions were consistent. (B) The degree of deformation of merozoites on erythrocyte surfaces was quantified according to [20] in the presence of antibodies. R5.004-(22) caused significantly less deformation than the control or parasite antibodies using chi-squared analysis. (C-G) The timings of other invasion stage as indicated on the y-axes were measured using the antibody combinations names and concentrations (μg/mL) indicated below the x-axes. Antibody 9 is Cy.007 Fab-(400). Each event measured is represented by a symbol with bars indicating the median. Statistical analyses were performed using unpaired t tests in GraphPad Prism V 9.0. The asterisks indicate where parasite mAbs have altered the number of events significantly from the EBL 040 control with *p (TIF)</p