The efficacy of DNA vaccination is enhanced in mice by targeting the encoded protein to dendritic cells

DNA vaccines promote an immune response by providing antigen-encoding DNA to the recipient, but the efficacy of such vaccines needs improving. Many approaches have considerable potential but currently induce relatively weak immune responses despite multiple high doses of DNA vaccine. Here, we asked whether targeting vaccine antigens to DCs would increase the immunity and protection that result from DNA vaccines. To determine this, we generated a DNA vaccine encoding a fusion protein comprised of the vaccine antigen and a single-chain Fv antibody (scFv) specific for the DC-restricted antigen-uptake receptor DEC205. Following vaccination of mice, the vaccine antigen was expressed selectively by DCs, which were required for the increased efficacy of MHC class I and MHC class II antigen presentation relative to a control scFv DNA vaccine. In addition, a DNA vaccine encoding an HIV gag p41–scFv DEC205 fusion protein induced 10-fold higher antibody levels and increased numbers of IFN-γ–producing CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells. After a single i.m. injection of the DNA vaccine encoding an HIV gag p41–scFv DEC205 fusion protein, mice were protected from an airway challenge with a recombinant vaccinia virus expressing the HIV gag p41, even with 1% of the dose of nontargeted DNA vaccine. The efficacy of DNA vaccines therefore may be enhanced by inclusion of sequences such as single-chain antibodies to target the antigen to DCs.

DNA vaccination is at the forefront of efforts aimed at developing vaccines against challenging infectious diseases, including HIV AIDS as well as emerging strains of influenza and SARS (reviewed in refs. 1–4). Innovations in vaccine design have improved the immunogenicity of DNA vaccines, leading to licensure of 2 candidate DNA vaccines for nonhuman applications (reviewed in refs. 5, 6). However, in humans and experimental animals, repeated and high doses of DNA must be injected.

A fundamental initial step in vaccination is that the vaccine proteins need to be taken up, processed, and presented by DCs, which are antigen-presenting cells that initiate and control many aspects of the immune response. Following intradermal or i.m. injection of a plasmid DNA vaccine in mice, the encoded gene is expressed in transfected keratinocytes and myocytes at the site of inoculation (7) as well as a small number of DCs (8–12). Keratinocytes and myocytes lack MHC class II and costimulatory molecules, which renders them poorly effective at presenting antigen and priming naive immune cells (reviewed in ref. 13), and they do not have ready access to T cells in lymphoid tissues, as is the case for DCs (14, 15). Therefore, it is thought that immune priming begins through the function of a few transduced DCs and that antigen secreted from other long-lived transfected cells then boosts immunity (16–23). We hypothesized that the weak immunogenicity of DNA vaccines could be overcome by directly targeting the encoded vaccine protein to DCs, particularly during the later stages of immunization.

Recent studies have demonstrated that antigens can be targeted selectively to DCs in vivo when antigen is incorporated into an antibody against the DC endocytic receptor, DEC205/CD205 (24). This targeting is accompanied by efficient antigen processing and presentation on MHC class I and II products as well as strong and protective T cell immunity (25, 26). Demangel et al. reported on the capacity of a single-chain antibody to murine anti-DEC205 (scDEC) to target DNA vaccine antigens in mice (27). They observed approximately a 2-fold increase in B and T cell responses to a mycobacterial antigen but did not establish whether targeted delivery of vaccine to DCs was taking place or whether the dose of DNA vaccine could be reduced and maintain efficacy. As a result, it is not clear whether the targeted delivery to DCs overcomes some of the key obstacles to current DNA vaccines.

We have evaluated the incorporation of a scDEC antibody into DNA vaccines. We will show that this approach greatly enhances antigen presentation by DCs in lymphoid tissues relative to nontargeted DNA vaccine in mice, and concomitantly, that single and much lower doses of DNA are effective in inducing immunity and protection.

Construction and expression of scDEC DNA vaccines. To better target DNA vaccines to DCs, a eukaryotic expression plasmid was constructed to encode scDEC fused to a vaccine protein. DEC205 is an antigen uptake receptor on DCs, and the open reading frames for the variable regions of the light and heavy chains of the parental anti-DEC205 antibody were fused to the protein sequence. A control plasmid from a nonreactive antibody was also constructed with different variable light- and heavy-chain V regions (Figure 1A). cDNAs for OVA, HIV gag p41 (anti-p41) and p24 (anti-p24), and GFP were cloned in frame with the scDEC or the control antibody. To verify that the scDEC protein retained the antigen-binding activity of the parental antibody, we measured specific binding to Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells stably expressing murine DEC205 receptor. Only supernatants from scDEC-OVA–transfected 293T cells (Figure 1, B and C) showed binding to DEC205-expressing CHO cells. When we compared the DEC205-binding efficacy of the scDEC-OVA relative to the parental bivalent antibody, both had strong and specific binding ability to DEC-transfected CHO cells but not to control CHO cells (Figure 1C). We also compared the expression of scDEC and scControl DNA using the GFP reporter and found comparable expression in transiently transfected 293T cells (Supplemental Figure 1, A and B; supplemental material available online with this article; doi:10.1172/JCI34224DS1), but only the scDEC-EGFP vaccine bound selectively to CHO cells expressing mouse DEC205 (Supplemental Figure 1C). Western blot analysis of supernatants and lysates of 293T cells transfected with expression plasmids for different single-chain antibodies conjugated to the different vaccine proteins was then carried out and revealed comparable expression and secretion of scDEC and scControl fusion proteins of the expected size (Figure 1, D–F). Therefore scDEC fusion antibodies retain the binding capacity of the parental anti-DEC205 antibody and are secreted by transiently transfected cells.

Figure 1

Design and characterization of antigen fused to single-chain antibody to DEC205. (A) Map of expression cassettes encoding vaccine protein (Vac protein) fused to single-chain scDEC and scControl. Heavy-chain (H) and light-chain (L) cDNAs of each mAb were connected by an interchain linker (ICL) and cloned in frame upstream of the cDNA for OVA, HIV gag fragments (p41, p24), or GFP in a eukaryotic expression plasmid containing the human CMV immediate early promoter and a bovine growth hormone polyadenylation signal (pAd). LP, leader peptide; Tag, myc and 6× histidine tag. (B) Binding to CHO cells expressing murine DEC205 (CHOmDEC205) or CHOneo control cells of recombinant single-chain mAbs-OVA fusion proteins detected by an OVA-specific, FITC-labeled secondary antibody. (C) Right part shows an overlay of the binding of the parental bivalent antibody (DEC-OVA) compared with scDEC-OVA. (D–F) Supernatants and lysates of 293T cells transfected with expression plasmids for scDEC or scControl conjugated to either OVA, HIV gag p41, HIV gag p24, or empty expression plasmid (pcDNA3.1; Invitrogen) were Western blotted using mAbs against OVA (D) or anti-HIV gag p24 (E and F).

Improved in vivo targeting of antigen to DCs using scDEC DNA vaccine. To determine whether scDEC DNA vaccines would improve antigen delivery to DCs in vivo, we used scDEC-OVA because sensitive and valuable reagents are available to monitor the successful processing and presentation of OVA on MHC class I and class II in vivo. Graded doses of scDEC– and scControl–OVA DNA were injected i.m. in combination with electroporation. It has previously been shown that electroporation enhances the efficacy of DNA vaccination (28, 29). From 4 to 5 days after DNA injection, OVA-specific, TCR transgenic T cells were labeled with CFSE and transferred into the vaccinated mice. If OVA antigen were being presented in vivo, these T cells would proliferate over the ensuing 3 days, yielding half the amount of the CFSE label per cell with each cell division. In the case of scDEC-OVA, we found that the majority of the TCR transgenic T cells went into cell cycle, i.e., both CD8⁺ MHC-I–restricted OT-I cells and CD4⁺ MHC-II–restricted OT-II cells. The OT-I cells responded to the DNA vaccine at all doses, 3–100 μg, whereas the OT-II cells only showed proliferation at the higher doses of DNA. This reflects the fact that OT-I cells are unusually efficient in being able to recognize low pM doses of specific OVA peptide. In contrast, a 100-μg DNA dose of scControl OVA DNA was required to induce OT-I responses that were comparable to those obtained with 3 μg of scDEC-OVA, and no proliferation was observed for CD4⁺ OT-II T cells at any dose of scControl OVA DNA (Figure 2A).

Figure 2

Antigen presentation to OVA-specific T cells following in vivo targeting of DCs with OVA DNA fused to a single-chain antibody to DEC205. (A) Mice were immunized i.m. with graded doses of DNA, and 4 days later, 2 × 10⁶ CFSE-labeled CD8⁺ OT-I or 3 × 10⁶ CD4⁺ OT-II TCR transgenic T cells were injected i.v. At day 7, draining lymph node cells were harvested and cell division was evaluated by flow cytometry in CD4⁺ OT-II cells with Vα₂ T cell receptor (20.1) antibody and in CD8⁺ OT-I cells with Vβ_5.1/5.2⁺ T cell receptor (MR9-4) antibody. (A) Control mice received similar amounts of the scControl–OVA DNA vaccine. (B) As in A, but the experiments were performed with DEC^–/–, TAP^–/–, or WT B6 mice using 30 μg of each DNA vaccine. Representative results from 3 experiments are shown. (C) Longevity of in situ antigen presentation after vaccination with 30 μg DNA, then evaluation by antigen presentation to 2 × 10⁶ OT-I T cells injected at the indicated time points. (D) scDEC-OVA targets antigens to DCs after DNA vaccination. Mice were immunized with 30 μg of the indicated scFv DNA vaccines or backbone vector. 4 days later, CD11c⁺ and CD11c^– cells were isolated and cocultured with CFSE-labeled OT-I T cells at the indicated APC to T cell ratios to determine CFSE dilution in vitro at day 7.5 of the experiment. (E) CD11c-DTR mice were vaccinated with 30 μg scDEC-OVA or backbone vector and were depleted of CD11c⁺ DCs 4 days later by injection of 4 ng/g of DT (DT+); then CFSE-labeled OT-1 T cells were injected to monitor antigen presentation as in A. C–E are representative of 2 experiments.

To prove that MHC class I presentation by scDEC-OVA was DEC205 dependent, we performed similar experiments with DEC205-deficient (DEC^–/–) mice and observed a lack of T cell proliferation (DEC^–/–; Figure 2B). To prove that MHC class I presentation by the scDEC-OVA was transporter for antigenic peptides–dependent (TAP-dependent), we verified that TAP-deficient (TAP^–/–) mice could not induce OT-I T cell proliferation (Figure 2B).

To assess the duration of antigen presentation after scDEC-targeted DNA vaccination, B6 mice were immunized with 30 μg DNA, and CFSE-labeled OT-I TCR transgenic T cells were transferred 7, 14, 21, and 28 days later. Antigen presentation was measured by CFSE dilution by the transferred T cells in the draining inguinal as well as mesenteric and iliac lymph nodes and spleen. As shown in Figure 2C, presentation to OT-I T cells persisted for 4 weeks in the draining lymph nodes but decreased from week 1 to week 4. Presentation in the mesenteric lymph nodes and spleen persisted for 2 weeks and declined rapidly at weeks 3 and 4. Injection of scControl-OVA resulted in only minimal presentation in the first week (Figure 2C). Together, the data in Figure 2, A–C, indicate that scDEC DNA vaccination improves the efficacy and duration of antigen presentation in vivo by a DEC-dependent mechanism.

To establish that scDEC–OVA DNA vaccination targets DCs in vivo, we first isolated CD11c⁺ DC-enriched and CD11c^– DC-depleted cells from mice that were vaccinated with scDEC–OVA or scControl–OVA DNA. Then we cocultured the cells with CFSE-labeled OT-I TCR transgenic T cells as reporters for successful antigen presentation. We could only detect presentation of the OVA peptide and consequent proliferation of the OT-I TCR transgenic T cells from cocultures with CD11c⁺ DCs and not with CD11c^––presenting cells (Figure 2D). In addition, no proliferation was observed when we cocultured OT-I TCR transgenic T cells with CD11c⁺ DCs from DEC205-deficient mice, indicating that DEC205 was necessary for the uptake of the targeted vaccine by CD11c⁺ DCs (Figure 2D). Finally, CD11c⁺ DCs isolated from mice treated with the control DNA vaccine only induced background levels of proliferation (Figure 2D). We conclude that the targeted DNA vaccine delivered antigen to CD11c⁺ DCs in situ in a DEC205-dependent manner.

To investigate the role of DCs in targeted DNA vaccination in vivo, we used a transgenic mouse (CD11c-DTR/GFP) that allows for conditional ablation of CD11c⁺ DCs in vivo after administration of diphtheria toxin (DT) (30). These mice carry a transgene encoding a fusion protein of the DT receptor and GFP under control of the mouse CD11c promoter, allowing for depletion of DCs in vivo upon injection of DT. The CD11c-DTR/GFP mice as well as transgene-negative littermates and WT C57BL/6 mice were vaccinated with 30 μg DNA i.m. and injected with DT on day 4 (4 ng/g body weight of DT i.p.). 24 hours later, the mice each received 3 × 10⁶ CFSE-labeled TCR transgenic OT-1 T cells. Three days later, draining lymph node lymphocytes were evaluated for proliferation of the T cells. As shown in Figure 2E, temporal ablation of CD11c⁺ DCs resulted in marked reduction in CFSE dilution. In contrast, WT littermates lacking the CD11c-DTR/GFP transgene and treated similarly with DT behaved like WT B6 mice, with virtually all the OT-I T cells going into cell cycle in mice following targeted DNA vaccination. Thus, the ablation of DCs hampered the ability of the targeted vaccine to induce OT-I T cell responses in vivo.

Targeted DNA vaccination improves antibody responses. To evaluate whether scDEC-OVA vaccination would improve B cell responses, we injected B6 mice with graded doses of the vaccine or scControl OVA and measured anti-OVA antibodies. Another control group received a dose of the backbone (empty) vector pcDNA3.1 equivalent to the highest dose of DNA vaccine (data not shown). At all doses of DNA, mice primed with scDEC–OVA DNA produced OVA-specific IgG1 antibody titers at least 10 times higher than those of groups primed with scControl OVA (Figure 3A). IgG2b and IgG2c titers were lower than IgG1, and the differences between scDEC-OVA and scControl-OVA were less than observed for IgG1 responses (Figure 3A).

Figure 3

Targeted vaccination induces enhanced antibody responses. Antigen-specific antibody titers were determined for each mouse in a group (n = 5) from serum harvested at 3 or 5 weeks after vaccination with the indicated doses of DNA. (A) Titers of anti-OVA–specific isotype in B6 mice after 1 immunization with graded doses of DNA vaccine i.m. in combination with electroporation. (B) Titers of anti-HIV gag p41 isotypes in BALB/c mice after 1 immunization with low doses of DNA vaccine i.m. in combination with electroporation. DNA vaccine type is displayed at the top. Antibody titers are expressed as group mean ± SD. Results are representative of 3 experiments.

We next tested to determine whether a single dose of scDEC-HIV gag p41 could induce better gag-specific antibody responses in BALB/c mice (Figure 3B). Six 8-week-old mice were injected once with 3 and 9 μg doses of DNA i.m. in combination with electroporation. Five weeks later, serum was tested for HIV gag p41–specific antibodies. Again, at least 10-fold better antibody titers were detected after a single injection of just 3 μg of the targeted vaccine, and the increase in titers was greatest for the IgG1 subclass of antibodies. Antibody responses due to the backbone vector (pcDNA3.1) alone were insignificant (data not shown). Thus, DEC205 targeting enhances the humoral responses to a DNA vaccine.

scDEC targeting improves HIV gag–specific T cell responses. To examine T cell immunity to HIV gag, we immunized mice with graded doses of scDEC gag p41 and control DNA vaccine and measured T cell responses with a library of 15-mer “mimetope” peptide staggered every 4 amino acids along the HIV gag p41 sequence (26). Multiparametric intracellular cytokine assays showed that C×B6 F1 mice generated T cell responses after vaccination with low doses of the targeted vaccine (0.3 and 3 μg DNA) whereas controls did not (Figure 4A). In contrast, at the higher doses that are typically used during DNA vaccine experiments in mice (30 μg), both scControl and scDEC vaccines performed similarly in inducing IFN-γ–producing, gag-specific T cells. Similar findings were made with ELISPOT assays, including the fact that no IL-4– or IL-10–producing cells were detectable (data not shown).

Figure 4

scDEC DNA vaccine improves HIV gag–specific T cell responses. Graded doses of the scDECp41 DNA vaccine alongside scControl DNA were administered i.m. in combination with electroporation to C×B6 F1 mice. 14 days later, the percentage of IFN-γ⁺/TNF-α⁺/IL-2⁺ T cells in gated CD3⁺ splenic T cells was assessed using a gag p41 peptide pool mix. (A) IFN-γ–secreting CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells among CD3⁺ T cells in responses to unrelated peptide or HIV gag p41 peptide pool mix. (B) Cytokine profile of the primed CD4⁺ T cells 14 days after DNA vaccination. Cells secreting 3 (arrows), 2, or 1 cytokine are indicated on the x axes. (C) Cytokine profile of the 3-μg DNA vaccine dose 28 days after vaccination as in B. Data are representative of 2 experiments with 2 mice pooled in each experiment.

T cells producing multiple cytokines appear to be especially effective in protective immunity (31–33). We therefore examined the quality of the T cell responses induced by DNA vaccination in terms of the capacity of gag-specific T cells to secrete multiple cytokines such as IFN-γ, TNF-α, and IL-2. Fourteen days after immunization, scDEC-targeted vaccination preferentially induced gag-specific polyfunctional CD4⁺ T cells, including triple cytokine producers, at all doses of the vaccine tested (Figure 4B). In contrast, triple producing cells were not detected after 1 dose of the scControl DNA vaccine. More double cytokine–producing CD4⁺ T cells were also induced at all doses of the scDEC vaccine (Figure 4B). The CD4⁺ T cell responses to scDEC vaccine were broad since reactivity was noted to peptides in p24 pools 1 and 4 and the p17 pool (data not shown), as previously observed with anti-DEC antibody immunization (26). Responses to the backbone DNA vector were insignificant (data not shown). Likewise, at 28 days after vaccination (Figure 4C), scDEC–gag p41 induced cytokine-producing CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells, including T cells with a predominant production of IL-2 as well as some double cytokine–producing T cells. These T cells expressed high levels of CD44, as is characteristic for memory T cells (not shown). These data indicate that scDEC targeting of low doses of DNA improves the induction of broad T cell–mediated immunity.

Targeted DNA vaccination elicits protection at a mucosal surface. To determine whether targeted vaccination produces long-lasting protective immunity at a mucosal surface, we challenged BALB/c and C×B6 F1 mice intranasally with recombinant vaccinia-gag virus 3 months after a single dose of targeted and control vaccine, using a wide range of DNA doses, i.e., 0.3, 3, and 30 μg per mouse. Control mice vaccinated with the empty vector were not protected relative to PBS-injected mice, and they lost weight and developed high lung virus titers over 7 days (10⁷–10⁸ PFU/ml per lung; data not shown). In contrast, all mice receiving graded doses of the scDEC-targeted vaccine were protected, even with a single dose of 0.3 μg DNA, whereas only mice vaccinated with the highest 30-μg dose of the scControl vaccine showed protection (Figure 5A). Data from a total of 4 different experiments, 2 each in BALB/c and BALB/c × C57Bl/6 F1 mice, are summarized in Figure 5B. It is evident that scDEC vaccine (Figure 5B) provides better and long-lived protective immunity at lower (0.3 and 3 μg) but not higher (30 μg) doses of DNA than the scControl (Figure 5B). Thus, the targeting of protein within a DNA vaccine to DCs in situ enhances protective efficacy by almost 100-fold.

Figure 5

A single, low-dose injection of DC-targeted DNA vaccine provides protective immunity to airway challenge with vaccinia gag virus. C×B6 F1 mice received graded doses of scDEC and scControl HIV gag DNA vaccine, and after 3 months, they were challenged i.n. with vaccinia gag virus. (A) Illustrative data of average weight (left panels) and mean ± SD lung virus titers (right panels) after challenge. (B) Summary of data from a total of 4 different experiments (5 mice per group), 2 each in BALB/c and BALB/c × C57Bl/6 F1 mice (*P < 0.05).

Our results directly show that DNA vaccines can be configured to improve antigen presentation by DCs in vivo and that this in turn improves immunity and lowers the dose of DNA vaccine that is required. Multiple strategies have been developed to augment immune stimulation following DNA vaccination (reviewed in refs. 34–36). One approach is to include plasmids that encode different types of immunostimulatory molecules, such as cytokines (IL-2, IL-12, GM-CSF, flt-3L), chemokines (MIP-1α, SLC), and membrane costimulators (CD80, CD86) (37–43). Another approach is for the DNA vaccine to encode a fusion protein that allows the vaccine to target to specific immune molecules that could enhance immunization, e.g., MHC class II, CTLA-4, Fc receptors, and chemokine receptors (refs. 44–50; reviewed in ref. 6). A third, newer approach has been for the DNA vaccine to target pattern recognition and “alarmin” receptors to increase triggering of the innate immune system, e.g., DEC205/CD205, TLR5, and HSP70 (27, 51, 52). This extensive literature has repeatedly shown that the immune response to DNA vaccines can be enhanced, but the findings have yet to prove that enhanced presentation of vaccine antigens by DCs is being achieved or that the dose of DNA required for vaccination can be greatly reduced.

To overcome these obstacles to improved DNA vaccines, we made plasmids in which the vaccine protein was fused to a single-chain antibody that could target the DEC205 receptor on DCs following secretion from transfected muscle. The rationale originated in prior research showing that hybrid antibodies carrying vaccine protein to target the DEC205 antigen uptake receptor on DCs could greatly increase antigen presentation and immune responses (24–26, 53–55). Here, we found that “hybrid” DNA vaccines, composed of scDEC205 or a single-chain Fv antibody (scFv) control Ig fused to another protein, were both secreted well from transfected cells. However, the introduction of an scDEC205 antibody sequence into the DNA vaccine led to improved delivery of vaccine protein to CD11c⁺ DCs in situ relative to scFv control Ig and resulted in a large increase in the efficacy with which the vaccine induced T cell immunity to and protection against a challenge infection. Demangel et al. have previously reported on the use of scDEC205 to improve DNA vaccination (27). However, their study did not demonstrate targeting to DCs in lymphoid organs in a receptor-dependent manner, and they did not report a marked reduction in the dose of vaccine DNA that could elicit immunity, including protective immunity. Our data indicate that the scDEC vaccine greatly enhances, by about 100-fold, the delivery of vaccine protein to DCs in vivo and allows for a corresponding reduction in the dose of DNA required to induce protective immunity.

Transfected muscle cells at sites of DNA injection may contribute to vaccine immunogenicity (21, 56). However, we feel that our results are best explained by the secretion of scFv anti-DEC vaccine from transfected muscle or other cells and then presentation by DCs targeted by the anti-DEC. This event is termed cross presentation because muscle cells synthesize the vaccine antigen, which then crosses into DCs for processing and presentation to T cells. Cross priming acts as a major mechanism for the induction of T cell responses following DNA vaccination (16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23).

Hybrid αDEC antibody protein vaccines (24–26, 53–55) represent one strategy for preparing DC-targeted vaccines, but the extension of this concept to DNA vaccines is limited by the need to coexpress the heavy and light chains in vivo to form a functional antibody within specialized antibody-producing B cells. The use of scFv αDEC-antigen fusion plasmids allows the anti-DEC antibody to be secreted in tandem with the vaccine fusion protein from transfected non-B cells, and it allows for prolonged and greatly improved presentation of vaccine by DCs in lymphoid organs (Figures 1 and 2). In addition, we used an electroporation instrument to facilitate the delivery of DNA following i.m. injection, as has been reported by many others (e.g., refs. 29, 57–60). A newer finding is that electroporation may also make more DNA available for detection by intracellular DNA sensors, thereby activating the production of cytokines as an innate reaction (61). Thus, DNA electroporation in combination with DC targeting could provide a much more efficient platform for developing clinically effective DNA vaccines.

DCs are known to express several receptors with the potential to enhance antigen uptake (62). To date, the DEC205/CD205 receptor has been studied in the greatest detail in vivo and shown to deliver many different proteins for presentation on both MHC class I and II products (24–26, 53, 55). DEC205 is expressed at high levels on a large fraction of DCs in the T cell areas of lymphoid organs, including human lymphoid tissues (15). However, other uptake receptors such as DCIR2 are preferentially expressed on different DC subsets with distinct antigen-presenting properties, and these too need to be assessed in single-chain antibody–based targeting vaccines (54). DEC205 targeting may be advantageous because it targets a subset of DCs in mice that is specialized to process antigens on MHC class I but also mediates improved immunization of MHC class II–restricted CD4⁺ helper T cells (25, 26, 53).

Unlike protein-based DEC205 vaccines, which require the coinjection of additional DC maturation stimuli to induce T cell responses (24–26, 53, 55), scDEC targeting in a DNA format induces immunity with no additional external adjuvant (27), possibly because the DNA itself provides some signals for DC maturation (61). In this study, we constructed several single-chain antibody-antigen fusion proteins that maintained the DEC205-binding specificity of the parental antibody. Injection of the scDEC DNA vaccine i.m. in combination with electroporation allowed antigen to be targeted to DCs in a DEC205-dependent fashion, resulting in a marked increase in presentation of antigen on MHC class I and II products. It needs to be determined whether the efficacy of scDEC-targeted vaccines can be further improved by the inclusion of additional stimuli that increase DC numbers and maturation state and/or improve the function of the responding T cells.

In summary, in vivo targeting of DNA-encoded vaccine proteins to DCs with scFv to DEC205 has the following features: (a) a precisely defined ratio of antigen to targeting antibody; (b) absence of binding via Fc receptors; (c) relative ease of large-scale production of DNA vaccine; and (d) increased immunogenicity (antibody as well as CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells) because of the combination of DC targeting and stimulatory sequences within the vaccine. We propose that DC targeting via DEC205 or perhaps other DC receptors in the context of DNA vaccination will significantly enhance efficacy and may be particularly valuable for protection against diseases such as AIDS, in which broad-based immune responses will be helpful.

View Supplemental data

We thank A. Charalambous and P. Konig for their contributions to this work; H. Zebroski (Rockefeller University proteomics facility) for synthesizing peptides; B. Moltedo and C.B. Lopez (Department of Microbiology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine) for recombinant vaccinia gag virus; and J. Adams for help with the graphics. This work was supported by grants from the NIH (AI40045 and 40874), the European community DEC-VAC project (IP Nr.: 018685), and the Wilhelm-Sander-Foundation (2004.107.1).

Address correspondence to: Ralph M. Steinman, The Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, New York, New York 10065, USA. Phone: (212) 327-8107; Fax: (212) 327-8875; E-mail: steinma@mail.rockefeller.edu.

Nonstandard abbreviations used: CHO, Chinese hamster ovary; DT, diphtheria toxin; scDEC, single-chain antibody to murine DC205; scFv, single-chain Fv antibody; TAP, transporter for antigenic peptides.

Conflict of interest: R.M. Steinman and M.C. Nussenzweig have a financial interest in Celldex Therapeutics, which is developing antibody-based vaccines that target dendritic cells.

Reference information: J. Clin. Invest.118:1427–1436 (2008). doi:10.1172/JCI34224

1. Donnelly, J.J., Wahren, B., Liu, M.A. 2005. DNA vaccines: progress and challenges. J. Immunol. 175:633-639.
   View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
2. Douek, D.C., Kwong, P.D., Nabel, G.J. 2006. The rational design of an AIDS vaccine. Cell. 124:677-681.
   View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
3. Gurunathan, S., Wu, C.Y., Freidag, B.L., Seder, R.A. 2000. DNA vaccines: a key for inducing long-term cellular immunity. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 12:442-447.
   View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
4. Ulmer, J.B., Wahren, B., Liu, M.A. 2006. Gene-based vaccines: recent technical and clinical advances. Trends Mol. Med. 12:216-222.
   View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
5. Hokey, D.A., Weiner, D.B. 2006. DNA vaccines for HIV: challenges and opportunities. Springer Semin. Immunopathol. 28:267-279.
   View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
6. Liu, M.A., Wahren, B., Karlsson Hedestam, G.B. 2006. DNA vaccines: recent developments and future possibilities. Hum. Gene Ther. 17:1051-1061.
   View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
7. Wolff, J.A., et al. 1990. Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Science. 247:1465-1468.
   View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
8. Casares, S., Inaba, K., Brumeanu, T.-D., Steinman, R.M., Bona, C.A. 1997. Antigen presentation by dendritic cells following immunization with DNA encoding a class II-restricted viral epitope. J. Exp. Med. 186:1481-1486.
   View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
9. Porgador, A., et al. 1998. Predominant role for directly transfected dendritic cells in antigen presentation to CD8⁺ T cells after gene gun immunization. J. Exp. Med. 188:1075-1082.
   View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
10. Bot, A., Stan, A.C., Inaba, K., Steinman, R.M., Bona, C. 2000. Dendritic cells at a DNA vaccination site express the encoded influenza nucleoprotein and prime MHC class I-restricted cytolytic lymphocytes upon adoptive transfer. Int. Immunol. 12:825-832.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
11. Akbari, O., et al. 1999. DNA vaccination: transfection and activation of dendritic cells as key events for immunity. J. Exp. Med. 189:169-178.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
12. Condon, C., Watkins, S.C., Celluzzi, C.M., Thompson, K., Falo, L.D.J. 1996. DNA-based immunization by in vivo transfection of dendritic cells. Nat. Med. 2:1122-1128.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
13. Wiendl, H., Hohlfeld, R., Kieseier, B.C. 2005. Muscle-derived positive and negative regulators of the immune response. Curr. Opin. Rheumatol. 17:714-719.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
14. Lindquist, R.L., et al. 2004. Visualizing dendritic cell networks in vivo. Nat. Immunol. 5:1243-1250.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
15. Granelli-Piperno, A., et al. 2005. Dendritic cell-specific intercellular adhesion molecule 3-grabbing nonintegrin/CD209 is abundant on macrophages in the normal human lymph node and is not required for dendritic cell stimulation of the mixed leukocyte reaction. J. Immunol. 175:4265-4273.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
16. Corr, M., Lee, D.J., Carson, D.A., Tighe, H. 1996. Gene vaccination with naked plasmid DNA: mechanism of CTL priming. J. Exp. Med. 184:1555-1560.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
17. Doe, B., Selby, M., Barnett, S., Baenziger, J., Walker, C.M. 1996. Induction of cytotoxic T lymphocytes by intramuscular immunization with plasmid DNA is facilitated by bone marrow-derived cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93:8578-8583.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
18. Ulmer, J.B., Deck, R.R., DeWitt, C.M., Donnelly, J.J., Liu, M.A. 1996. Generation of MHC class-I restricted T lymphocytes by expression of a viral protein in muscle cells: antigen presentation by non-muscle cells. Immunology. 89:59-67.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
19. Fu, T.M., et al. 1997. Priming of cytotoxic T lymphocytes by DNA vaccines: requirement for professional antigen presenting cells and evidence for antigen transfer from myocytes. Mol. Med. 3:362-371.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
20. Iwasaki, A., Torres, C.A.T., Ohashi, P.S., Robinson, H.L., Barber, B.H. 1997. The dominant role of bone marrow derived cells in CTL induction following plasmid DNA immunization at different sites. J. Immunol. 159:11-14.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
21. Klinman, D.M., Sechler, J.M.G., Conover, J., Gu, M., Rosenberg, A.S. 1998. Contribution of cells at the site of DNA vaccination to the generation of antigen-specific immunity and memory. J. Immunol. 160:2388-2392.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
22. Corr, M., von Damm, A., Lee, D.J., Tighe, H. 1999. In vivo priming by DNA injection occurs predominantly by antigen transfer. J. Immunol. 163:4721-4727.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
23. Cho, J.H., Youn, J.W., Sung, Y.C. 2001. Cross-priming as a predominant mechanism for inducing CD8⁺ T cell responses in gene gun DNA immunization. J. Immunol. 167:5549-5557.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
24. Hawiger, D., et al. 2001. Dendritic cells induce peripheral T cell unresponsiveness under steady state conditions in vivo. J. Exp. Med. 194:769-780.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
25. Bonifaz, L.C., et al. 2004. In vivo targeting of antigens to maturing dendritic cells via the DEC-205 receptor improves T cell vaccination. J. Exp. Med. 199:815-824.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
26. Trumpfheller, C., et al. 2006. Intensified and protective CD4⁺ T cell immunity at a mucosal surface after a single dose of anti-dendritic cell HIV gag fusion antibody vaccine. J. Exp. Med. 203:607-617.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
27. Demangel, C., et al. 2005. Single chain antibody fragments for the selective targeting of antigens to dendritic cells. Mol. Immunol. 42:979-985.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
28. Widera, G., et al. 2000. Increased DNA vaccine delivery and immunogenicity by electroporation in vivo. J. Immunol. 164:4635-4640.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
29. Zucchelli, S., et al. 2000. Enhancing B- and T-cell immune response to a hepatitis C virus E2 DNA vaccine by intramuscular electrical gene transfer. J. Virol. 74:11598-11607.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
30. Jung, S., et al. 2002. In vivo depletion of CD11c⁺ dendritic cells abrogation priming of CD8⁺ T cells by exogenous cell-associated antigens. Immunity. 17:211-220.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
31. Harari, A., et al. 2006. Functional signatures of protective antiviral T-cell immunity in human virus infections. Immunol. Rev. 211:236-254.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
32. Precopio, M.L., et al. 2007. Immunization with vaccinia virus induces polyfunctional and phenotypically distinctive CD8⁺ T cell responses. J. Exp. Med. 204:1405-1416.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
33. Darrah, P.A., et al. 2007. Multifunctional T_H1 cells define a correlate of vaccine-mediated protection against Leishmania major. Nat. Med. 13:843-850.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
34. Scheerlinck, J.Y. 2001. Genetic adjuvants for DNA vaccines. Vaccine. 19:2647-2656.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
35. Barouch, D.H., Letvin, N.L., Seder, R.A. 2004. The role of cytokine DNAs as vaccine adjuvants for optimizing cellular immune responses. Immunol. Rev. 202:266-274.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
36. Kutzler, M.A., Weiner, D.B. 2004. Developing DNA vaccines that call to dendritic cells. J. Clin. Invest. 114:1241-1244.
    View this article via: JCI PubMed Google Scholar
37. Iwasaki, A., Stiernholm, B.J.N., Chan, A.K., Berinstein, N.L., Barber, B.H. 1997. Enhanced CTL responses mediated by plasmid DNA immunogens encoding costimulatory molecules and cytokines. J. Immunol. 158:4591-4601.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
38. Barouch, D.H., et al. 2000. Control of viremia and prevention of clinical AIDS in rhesus monkeys by cytokine-augmented DNA vaccination. Science. 290:486-492.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
39. Barouch, D.H., et al. 2002. Potent CD4⁺ T cell responses elicited by a bicistronic HIV-1 DNA vaccine expressing gp120 and GM-CSF. J. Immunol. 168:562-568.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
40. Mwangi, W., et al. 2002. DNA-encoded fetal liver tyrosine kinase 3 ligand and granulocyte macrophage-colony-stimulating factor increase dendritic cell recruitment to the inoculation site and enhance antigen-specific CD4⁺ T cell responses induced by DNA vaccination of outbred animals. J. Immunol. 169:3837-3846.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
41. Sumida, S.M., et al. 2004. Recruitment and expansion of dendritic cells in vivo potentiate the immunogenicity of plasmid DNA vaccines. J. Clin. Invest. 114:1334-1342.
    View this article via: JCI PubMed Google Scholar
42. Qin, H., et al. 2006. Enhancement of antitumour immunity by a novel chemotactic antigen DNA vaccine encoding chemokines and multiepitopes of prostate-tumour-associated antigens. Immunology. 117:419-430.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
43. Yen, H.H., Scheerlinck, J.P. 2007. Co-delivery of plasmid-encoded cytokines modulates the immune response to a DNA vaccine delivered by in vivo electroporation. Vaccine. 25:2575-2582.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
44. Boyle, J.S., Brady, J.L., Lew, A.M. 1998. Enhanced responses to a DNA vaccine encoding a fusion antigen that is directed to sites of immune induction. Nature. 392:408-411.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
45. Deliyannis, G., Boyle, J.S., Brady, J.L., Brown, L.E., Lew, A.M. 2000. A fusion DNA vaccine that targets antigen-presenting cells increases protection from viral challenge. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97:6676-6680.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
46. You, Z., Huang, X., Hester, J., Toh, H.C., Chen, S.Y. 2001. Targeting dendritic cells to enhance DNA vaccine potency. Cancer Res. 61:3704-3711.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
47. Green, T.D., Montefiori, D.C., Ross, T.M. 2003. Enhancement of antibodies to the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 envelope by using the molecular adjuvant C3d. J. Virol. 77:2046-2055.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
48. de Arruda, L.B., Chikhlikar, P.R., August, J.T., Marques, E.T. 2004. DNA vaccine encoding human immunodeficiency virus-1 Gag, targeted to the major histocompatibility complex II compartment by lysosomal-associated membrane protein, elicits enhanced long-term memory response. Immunology. 112:126-133.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
49. Biragyn, A., Tani, K., Grimm, M.C., Weeks, S., Kwak, L.W. 1999. Genetic fusion of chemokines to a self tumor antigen induces protective, T-cell dependent antitumor immunity. Nat. Biotechnol. 17:253-258.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
50. Schiavo, R., et al. 2006. Chemokine receptor targeting efficiently directs antigens to MHC class I pathways and elicits antigen-specific CD8+ T-cell responses. Blood. 107:4597-4605.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
51. Applequist, S.E., et al. 2005. Activation of innate immunity, inflammation, and potentiation of DNA vaccination through mammalian expression of the TLR5 agonist flagellin. J. Immunol. 175:3882-3891.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
52. Hauser, H., Chen, S.Y. 2003. Augmentation of DNA vaccine potency through secretory heat shock protein-mediated antigen targeting. Methods. 31:225-231.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
53. Boscardin, S.B., et al. 2006. Antigen targeting to dendritic cells elicits long-lived T cell help for antibody responses. J. Exp. Med. 203:599-606.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
54. Dudziak, D., et al. 2007. Differential antigen processing by dendritic cell subsets in vivo. Science. 315:107-111.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
55. Soares, H., et al. 2007. A subset of dendritic cells induces CD4⁺ T cells to produce IFN-γ by an IL-12-independent but CD70-dependent mechanism in vivo. J. Exp. Med. 204:1095-1106.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
56. Shirota, H., Petrenko, L., Hong, C., Klinman, D.M. 2007. Potential of transfected muscle cells to contribute to DNA vaccine immunogenicity. J. Immunol. 179:329-336.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
57. Otten, G., et al. 2004. Enhancement of DNA vaccine potency in rhesus macaques by electroporation. Vaccine. 22:2489-2493.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
58. Wu, C.J., Lee, S.C., Huang, H.W., Tao, M.H. 2004. In vivo electroporation of skeletal muscles increases the efficacy of Japanese encephalitis virus DNA vaccine. Vaccine. 22:1457-1464.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
59. Luxembourg, A., Hannaman, D., Ellefsen, B., Nakamura, G., Bernard, R. 2006. Enhancement of immune responses to an HBV DNA vaccine by electroporation. Vaccine. 24:4490-4493.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
60. Luckay, A., et al. 2007. Effect of plasmid DNA vaccine design and in vivo electroporation on the resulting vaccine-specific immune responses in rhesus macaques. J. Virol. 81:5257-5269.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
61. Takaoka, A., et al. 2007. DAI (DLM-1/ZBP1) is a cytosolic DNA sensor and an activator of innate immune response. Nature. 448:501-505.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
62. Figdor, C.G., van Kooyk, Y., Adema, G.J. 2002. C-type lectin receptors on dendritic cells and Langerhans cells. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2:77-84.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
63. Diebold, S.S., Cotten, M., Koch, N., Zenke, M. 2001. MHC class II presentation of endogenously expressed antigens by transfected dendritic cells. Gene Ther. 8:487-493.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
64. Bojak, A., Wild, J., Wolf, H., Wagner, R. 2002. Efficiency of a myogenic DNA vaccine is strictly dependent upon cellular localization of HIV-1 Pr55(gag). Vaccine. 20:1980-1984.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar