15 research outputs found

    Specificity of HPV type-specific antibodies against different HPV E1?E4 proteins by ELISA and Western blotting.

    No full text
    <p>Optical density measurements from ELISA on a panel of 10 recombinant maltose-binding E4 proteins (HPV-16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 52, 58, and 59) used to evaluate the specificity of on M16E4<sub>35–42</sub>, R18E4<sub>53–60</sub> and R58E4<sub>23–30</sub> polyclonal antibodies (A) and MoAb16E4<sub>35–42</sub> monoclonal antibody (B). Cross-reactive TVG405 was used for comparison (C) and the relative abundance of the various MBP proteins is shown following staining with Coomassie blue (lower panel of C). Western blot results are shown as inserts under the corresponding graphs presenting the ELISA results.</p

    Immunohistochemical staining of HPV E4 proteins in productive cervical lesions caused by different HPV types using MoAb16E4<sub>35–42</sub>, R18E4<sub>53–60</sub>, R58E4<sub>23–30</sub> or TVG405 antibodies.

    No full text
    <p>A) Scan of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained biopsy 44 (genotype HPV-16, 31 by WTS-PCR) with areas of interest boxed in yellow. Detection of HPV-31 E4 in region of CIN1 (i) using TVG 405; MoAb16E4<sub>35–42</sub> antibody gave no staining on the same tissue section. HPV-16 E4 is detected using MoAb16E4<sub>35–42</sub> antibody in a region of CIN2 (ii) and confirmed using TVG405 on the same tissue section. B) Scan of H&E stained biopsy 62 (genotype HPV-58 by WTS-PCR and LCM-PCR) with area of interest boxed in yellow. Detection of HPV-58 E4 protein expression by R58E4<sub>23–30</sub> antibody in an HPV-58-infected region classified as CIN2. MoAb16E4<sub>35–42</sub> antibody gave no staining on the same tissue section indicating no cross-reactivity. C) Scan of H&E stained section biopsy 16 (genotype HPV-18 by WTS-PCR) with area of interest boxed in yellow. Detection of HPV-18 E4 protein expression using R18E4<sub>53–60</sub> antibody in an HPV-18-infected CIN1 lesion and confirmation by TVG405 staining regime 2 on the same tissue section. MoAb16E4<sub>35–42</sub> antibody gave no staining indicating no cross-reactivity. All sections were counterstained with 4′,6′-diamino-2-diamino-2-phenylindole (DAPI, blue).</p

    Immuno-histochemistry results with type-specific anti-E4 antibodies on cervical biopsies.

    No full text
    <p>HPV-16, HPV-18, and HPV-58 containing raft controls were positive with the appropriate anti-E4 antibodies in each experiment.</p><p>− = negative;</p><p>+ = positive.</p><p>WTS-PCR = whole tissue section PCR.</p><p>N/A = Not applicable (Tissues section not tested).</p>*<p>58 positive area is different to the area sampled by LCM (laser capture micro-dissection).</p>**<p>31 positive area lost from slide during immunostaining protocol.</p>***<p>differentiated layers lost from slide during immunostaining protocol.</p><p>() = weakly positive for this type.</p><p>CIN: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.</p>£<p>All HPV types were detected by LCM-PCR as single type HPV infections in different CIN lesion areas.</p

    Evaluation of E4, MCM and L1 protein expression in HPV16, 18 and 58 rafts.

    No full text
    <p>(A) HPV-16 and 18 rafts were probed with cross-reactive TVG405 (green) and MCM (red) antibodies. The HPV-58 raft was stained with cross-reactive (RE4) rabbit sera (green) and MCM (red) antibody. The staining patterns are typical of those expected for high-risk HPV types. (B) Novel HPV-58 rafts were further probed with R58E4<sub>23–30</sub> (green) and HPV L1 (red) antibodies and compared with rafts containing HPV16 and 18 and stained with HPV L1 and MoAb16E4<sub>35–42</sub> and R18E4<sub>53–60</sub> respectively. The detection of L1 in a subset of the E4-positive cells was seen in each raft. All sections were counterstained with 4′,6′-diamino-2-diamino-2-phenylindole (DAPI, blue). The images were taken on a microscope using a 10x (A) or 40x (B) objective. The merged image (E4 green/MCM red) is shown on the right of the figure. L1 was detected in the superficial and mid-spinous cell layersp.</p

    Evaluation of antibody specificity using rafts containing HPV-16, 18 and 58.

    No full text
    <p>A) Raft sections containing HPV-16, -18 or -58 genomes were individually probed with MoAb16E4<sub>35–42</sub>, R18E4<sub>53–60</sub> and R58E4<sub>23–30</sub> antibodies (red) and were counterstained with DAPI (blue). The different antibodies allowed type-specific detection of E4 and showed no cross-reactivity amongst the types tested. B) E4 protein expression was detected in HPV-16, -18 and -58 rafts after pre-treatment with solution D, pH 9.0 and autoclaved for 2 min, prior to incubation with MoAb16E4<sub>35–42</sub>, R18E4<sub>53–60</sub> and R58E4<sub>23–30</sub> antibodies (red - upper panels). In the lower panels, sections were pre-treated in the same way prior to incubation with cross-reacting TVG405 or RE4 (green). All sections were counterstained with 4′,6′-diamino-2-diamino-2-phenylindole (DAPI, blue).</p

    Reduced Prevalence of Oral Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 4 Years after Bivalent HPV Vaccination in a Randomized Clinical Trial in Costa Rica

    No full text
    <div><p>Background</p><p>Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, particularly with type 16, causes a growing fraction of oropharyngeal cancers, whose incidence is increasing, mainly in developed countries. In a double-blind controlled trial conducted to investigate vaccine efficacy (VE) of the bivalent HPV 16/18 vaccine against cervical infections and lesions, we estimated VE against prevalent oral HPV infections 4 years after vaccination.</p><p>Methods and Findings</p><p>A total of 7,466 women 18–25 years old were randomized (1∶1) to receive the HPV16/18 vaccine or hepatitis A vaccine as control. At the final blinded 4-year study visit, 5,840 participants provided oral specimens (91·9% of eligible women) to evaluate VE against oral infections. Our primary analysis evaluated prevalent oral HPV infection among all vaccinated women with oral and cervical HPV results. Corresponding VE against prevalent cervical HPV16/18 infection was calculated for comparison. Oral prevalence of identifiable mucosal HPV was relatively low (1·7%). Approximately four years after vaccination, there were 15 prevalent HPV16/18 infections in the control group and one in the vaccine group, for an estimated VE of 93·3% (95% CI = 63% to 100%). Corresponding efficacy against prevalent cervical HPV16/18 infection for the same cohort at the same visit was 72·0% (95% CI = 63% to 79%) (p versus oral VE = 0·04). There was no statistically significant protection against other oral HPV infections, though power was limited for these analyses.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>HPV prevalence four years after vaccination with the ASO4-adjuvanted HPV16/18 vaccine was much lower among women in the vaccine arm compared to the control arm, suggesting that the vaccine affords strong protection against oral HPV16/18 infection, with potentially important implications for prevention of increasingly common HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer.</p><p></p><p>ClinicalTrials.gov, Registry number <a href="http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00128661?term=NCT00128661&rank=1" target="_blank">NCT00128661</a></p></div

    Proportion of women who accepted oral specimen collection among all women who attended the 4- year annual visit by selected characteristics.

    No full text
    *<p>Unknown excluded from calculation.</p>∫<p>P value for the comparison of women who did and did not accept oral specimen collections.</p>◊<p>Two 17 yr olds are classified in the ‘18–19’ group and one 27 yr old is classified in the ‘24–25’ group.</p
    corecore