Skip to main content

Table 2 Differences between mouse and rhesus models

From: Rhesus macaque and mouse models for down-selecting circumsporozoite protein based malaria vaccines differ significantly in immunogenicity and functional outcomes

Parameter Mouse model Rhesus model
Priming vaccination (Table 1; Fig. 2) ~900-fold higher Qβ-CSP NANP titres after first dose ~12-fold difference between vaccines
Booster vaccination (Fig. 2) Titres were boosted by each vaccination No boosting beyond second dose
Immunogenicity (Table 1; Figs. 2, 6) Significantly higher FL and NANP titres for Qβ-CSP group after the third dose Differences between vaccines was lower and not significant
Serum antibody avidity (Fig. 3) Higher avidity of Qβ-CSP group No difference in avidity
NANP epitope bias (Fig. 4) NANP-biased Qβ-CSP group response after each dose NANP-biased response of Qβ-CSP after 1st dose only
NANP mAb competition (Fig. 5) Higher mAb 2A10 inhibition by anti-Qβ-CSP No difference in mAb inhibition detected
N-terminal response (Fig. 5) Higher N-terminal response by Qβ-CSP No difference in N-terminal response
Functional assay (Fig. 6) No difference in protection observed after direct challenge Qβ-CSP protected more mice in a neutralization assay
  1. Summary of observed differences between animal models in the present study, with respect to comparison between Qβ-CSP and CSP vaccines. Tables and Figures illustrating noted differences are referenced for each parameter