The Hard Way towards an Antibody-Based HIV-1 Env Vaccine: Lessons from Other Viruses

Although effective antibody-based vaccines have been developed against multiple viruses, such approaches have so far failed for the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). Despite the success of anti-retroviral therapy (ART) that has turned HIV-1 infection into a chronic disease and has reduced the number of new infections worldwide, a vaccine against HIV-1 is still urgently needed. We discuss here the major reasons for the failure of “classical” vaccine approaches, which are mostly due to the biological properties of the virus itself. HIV-1 has developed multiple mechanisms of immune escape, which also account for vaccine failure. So far, no vaccine candidate has been able to induce broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) against primary patient viruses from different clades. However, such antibodies were identified in a subset of patients during chronic infection and were shown to protect from infection in animal models and to reduce viremia in first clinical trials. Their detailed characterization has guided structure-based reverse vaccinology approaches to design better HIV-1 envelope (Env) immunogens. Furthermore, conserved Env epitopes have been identified, which are promising candidates in view of clinical applications. Together with new vector-based technologies, considerable progress has been achieved in recent years towards the development of an effective antibody-based HIV-1 vaccine.

Structure-Based Reverse Vaccinology Failed in the Case of HIV Because it Disregarded Accepted Immunological Theory

Two types of reverse vaccinology (RV) should be distinguished: genome-based RV for bacterial vaccines and structure-based RV for viral vaccines. Structure-based RV consists in trying to generate a vaccine by first determining the crystallographic structure of a complex between a viral epitope and a neutralizing monoclonal antibody (nMab) and then reconstructing the epitope by reverse molecular engineering outside the context of the native viral protein. It is based on the unwarranted assumption that the epitope designed to fit the nMab will have acquired the immunogenic capacity to elicit a polyclonal antibody response with the same protective capacity as the nMab. After more than a decade of intensive research using this type of RV, this approach has failed to deliver an effective, preventive HIV-1 vaccine. The structure and dynamics of different types of HIV-1 epitopes and of paratopes are described. The rational design of an anti-HIV-1 vaccine is shown to be a misnomer since investigators who claim that they design a vaccine are actually only improving the antigenic binding capacity of one epitope with respect to only one paratope and not the immunogenic capacity of an epitope to elicit neutralizing antibodies. Because of the degeneracy of the immune system and the polyspecificity of antibodies, each epitope studied by the structure-based RV procedure is only one of the many epitopes that the particular nMab is able to recognize and there is no reason to assume that this nMab must have been elicited by this one epitope of known structure. Recent evidence is presented that the trimeric Env spikes of the virus possess such an enormous plasticity and intrinsic structural flexibility that it is it extremely difficult to determine which Env regions are the best candidate vaccine immunogens most likely to elicit protective antibodies.

An Outdated Notion of Antibody Specificity is One of the Major Detrimental Assumptions of the Structure-Based Reverse Vaccinology Paradigm, Which Prevented It from Helping to Develop an Effective HIV-1 Vaccine

The importance of paradigms for guiding scientific research is explained with reference to the seminal work of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. A prevalent paradigm, followed for more than a decade in HIV-1 vaccine research, which gave rise to the strategy known as structure-based reverse vaccinology is described in detail. Several reasons why this paradigm did not allow the development of an effective HIV-1 vaccine are analyzed. A major reason is the belief shared by many vaccinologists that antibodies possess a narrow specificity for a single epitope and are not polyspecific for a diverse group of potential epitopes. When this belief is abandoned, it becomes obvious that the one particular epitope structure observed during the crystallographic analysis of a neutralizing antibody–antigen complex does not necessarily reveal, which immunogenic structure should be used to elicit the same type of neutralizing antibody. In the physical sciences, scientific explanations are usually presented as logical deductions derived from a relevant law of nature together with certain initial conditions. In immunology, causal explanations in terms of a single cause acting according to a law of nature are not possible because numerous factors always play a role in bringing about an effect. The implications of this state of affairs for the rational design of HIV vaccines are outlined. An alternative approach to obtain useful scientific understanding consists in intervening empirically in the immune system and it is suggested that manipulating the system experimentally is needed to learn to control it and achieve protective immunity by vaccination.