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