Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Apr 18;19(4):e0297833. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297833

mRNA vaccines encoding influenza virus hemagglutinin (HA) elicits immunity in mice from influenza A virus challenge

Z Beau Reneer 1,*, Harrison C Bergeron 1, Stephen Reynolds 1, Elena Thornhill-Wadolowski 2, Lan Feng 2, Marcin Bugno 2, Agnieszka D Truax 2, Ralph A Tripp 1
Editor: Victor C Huber3
PMCID: PMC11025922  PMID: 38635725

Abstract

Influenza viruses cause epidemics and can cause pandemics with substantial morbidity with some mortality every year. Seasonal influenza vaccines have incomplete effectiveness and elicit a narrow antibody response that often does not protect against mutations occurring in influenza viruses. Thus, various vaccine approaches have been investigated to improve safety and efficacy. Here, we evaluate an mRNA influenza vaccine encoding hemagglutinin (HA) proteins in a BALB/c mouse model. The results show that mRNA vaccination elicits neutralizing and serum antibodies to each influenza virus strain contained in the current quadrivalent vaccine that is designed to protect against four different influenza viruses including two influenza A viruses (IAV) and two influenza B (IBV), as well as several antigenically distinct influenza virus strains in both hemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI) and virus neutralization assays. The quadrivalent mRNA vaccines had antibody titers comparable to the antibodies elicited by the monovalent vaccines to each tested virus regardless of dosage following an mRNA booster vaccine. Mice vaccinated with mRNA encoding an H1 HA had decreased weight loss and decreased lung viral titers compared to mice not vaccinated with an mRNA encoding an H1 HA. Overall, this study demonstrates the efficacy of mRNA-based seasonal influenza vaccines are their potential to replace both the currently available split-inactivated, and live-attenuated seasonal influenza vaccines.

Introduction

There are four types of influenza viruses, i.e. A, B, C, and D. Influenza A virus (IAV) and influenza B virus (IBV) can cause seasonal epidemics of disease in people every winter in the United States [1]. IAV is the only influenza virus type known to cause pandemics. IAVs are divided into subtypes based on HA and neuraminidase (NA) gene expression. There are 18 HA subtypes and 11 NA subtypes where IAV subtypes exist mostly in wild birds [2]. The IAV subtypes that routinely circulate in people include A(H1N1) and A(H3N2). Humans are regularly infected with IAVs and IBVs which cause approximately 250,000–650,000 deaths annually despite widely available seasonal influenza vaccines [3]. Seasonal influenza vaccines contain four components, i.e. two IAV strains (H1N1 subtype and H3N2 subtype) and two IBV strains (B/Victoria lineage and B/Yamagata lineage) [4]. The effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccines varies each season but is typically only 40–60% effective. However, the effectiveness of the seasonal influenza vaccines can be lower than 20% [5].

Given the success of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine for reducing COVID-19 [6], recent studies have evaluated mRNA-lipid nanoparticle (LNP) influenza virus vaccines. These studies have evaluated mRNA vaccines containing multiple IAV or IBV HA antigens [79]. These studies have evaluated multiple different doses of mRNA-based vaccines and various formulations of nucleoside modified mRNA which all elicited antibody titers to their encoded antigens. In this study, we evaluated a novel quadrivalent mRNA vaccine, produced my Immorna Biotherapeutics, for seasonal influenza viruses in BALB/c mice.

The results in our study show that mRNA vaccination elicits potent neutralizing serum antibodies to all IAV and IBV strains that are currently in the three influenza vaccines that are recommended for people 65 years and older, i.e. Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent® vaccine, Flublok Quadrivalent® recombinant influenza vaccine, and Fluad Quadrivalent® adjuvanted flu vaccine. The WHO recommends quadrivalent vaccines for use in the 2022–2023 season for egg-based vaccines consisting of an A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus, an A/Darwin/9/2021 (H3N2)-like virus, a B/Austria/1359417/2021 (B/Victoria lineage-like), and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (B/Yamagata lineage-like) viruses. For cell culture or recombinant vaccines, the WHO recommends a vaccine consisting of A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1 pdm09-like), A/Darwin/6/2021 (H3N2-like virus, B/Austria/1359417/2021 (B/Victoria lineage-like), and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (B/Yamagata lineage-like) viruses. Low (5 μg) and high-dose (20 μg) quadrivalent mRNA vaccines produced antibody titers in mice comparable to the antibodies elicited by the monovalent mRNA vaccines in both hemagglutinin inhibition (HAI) and neutralization assays. Mice vaccinated with mRNA encoding an H1 HA (e.g. A/Wisconsin/588/2019) alone or a quadrivalent mRNA vaccine containing an H1 HA component had decreased weight loss and decreased lung viral titers compared to mice vaccinated with an H3 HA mRNA vaccine. The findings show that a multivalent mRNA influenza vaccine protects against matched and antigenically distinct mismatched viruses by inducing neutralizing antibodies.

Results

mRNA vaccination and challenge with A/California/04/2009 (A/Cal/09) H1N1

Female BALB/c mice (n = 6) were vaccinated with either an mRNA vaccine coding for a single HA, or the quadrivalent vaccine including 4 mRNAs combined at 1:1:1:1 weight ratio, each coding for 1 of 4 different HAs from 2022–2023 seasonal influenza viruses. Specifically, a quadrivalent vaccine consisting of A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (A/Wis/19 H1N1), A/Darwin/6/2021 (A/Dar/21 H3N2), B/Austria/1359417/2021 (B/Aus/21 Victoria lineage), and B/Phuket/3073/2013 (B/Phu/14 Yamagata lineage). The vaccine groups are outlined in Table 1 where Group 1 = lipid nanoparticle (LNP) only, Group 2 = A/Wis/19, Group 3 = A/Dar/21, Group 4 = B/Aus/21, Group 5 = B/Phu/13, Group 6 = quadrivalent (20 ug), Group 7 = quadrivalent (5 ug), Group 8 = quadrivalent (20 ug, single vaccination), Group 9 = quadrivalent (5 ug, two site injections—one site for IAV and one site for IBV). mRNA vaccination was examined two months post boost vaccination, and the mice were challenged with a sub-lethal dose of H1N1 A/California/04/2009 (A/Cal/09). At days 2 and 3 post-infection, vaccine Groups 1 (LNP only), 3 (A/Dar/21, H3N2), group 4 (B/Aus/21) and 5 (B/Phu/13) had significantly (p<0.05) lower body weights than any of the other vaccine groups (Fig 1). At day 5 post-infection, the remaining mice in each group were euthanized and their spleens were harvested for cellular analysis.

Table 1. Vaccination outline.

Group Number Description Dosage
Group 1 LNP only 2 injections
Group 2 A/Wisconsin/588/2019 5 μg/dose (2 injections)
Group 3 A/Darwin/6/2021 5 μg/dose (2 injections)
Group 4 B/Austria/1359417/2021 5 μg/dose (2 injections)
Group 5 B/Phuket/3073/2013 5 μg/dose (2 injections)
Group 6 Quadrivalent 20 μg/dose (2 injections)
Group 7 Quadrivalent 5 μg/dose (2 injections)
Group 8 Quadrivalent 20 μg/dose (1 injection)
Group 9 Quadrivalent 5 μg/dose (2 injections IAVs in right thigh and IBVs in left thigh)

Fig 1. A/California/04/2009 weight loss.

Fig 1

Weight loss of A/California/04/2009 challenged BALB/c mice (n = 6 mice/group). BALB/c mice were challenged intranasally with 104 PFU/mouse. Weight loss was recorded for five days post-infection. Asterisks (*) represent statistical significance based on two-way ANOVA (p<0.05).

Lung virus titers

Mice (n = 3/Group) were sacrificed on day 3 post-infection and their lungs were harvested to quantify viral titers (Fig 2). Groups 4 (B/Aus/21) and 5 (B/Phu/13) were not included in lung viral titer analysis due to insufficient numbers of mice in each group. A mouse in each group had to be sacrificed prior to infection due to pre-infection bleeds. Vaccine Groups 1 (LNP only) and 3 (A/Dar/21) both had greater than 106 PFU/mL lung viral titers. Groups 7 (quadrivalent, 5 ug), 8 (quadrivalent, 20 ug) and 9 (quadrivalent, 5 ug, 2 injections—IAVs in right thigh and IBVs in left thigh) all had approximately 104 PFU/mL lung viral titers, while Groups 2 (A/Wis/19) and 6 (quadrivalent, 20 ug, 2 injections) had viral lung titers below the limit of detection of the plaque assay (50 PFU/mL). Both Groups 1 (LNP only) and 3 (A/Dar/21) had significantly (p<0.05) higher lung viral titers compared to Group 2 (A/Wis/19), Group 6 (quadrivalent, 20 ug), and Group 7 (quadrivalent, 5 ug) while Groups 8 (quadrivalent, 20 ug) and 9 (quadrivalent, 5 ug, 2 injections IAVs in right thigh and IBVs in left thigh) had significantly (p<0.05) higher lung viral titers compared to Groups 2 and 6.

Fig 2. Lung viral titers.

Fig 2

Viral titers in lungs of vaccinated mice. Mice were infected with A/California/04/2009 i.n. with 104 PFU/mouse. Mice from each group (n = 3) were sacrificed on day 3 pi and lungs were harvested using plaque assays as described. Statistical significance was determined by one-way ANOVA (p<0.05).

Hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibodies

Serum samples were collected on day 19 and 42 post-prime vaccination (or day 21 post-boost). The sera at each time point was titrated for receptor-blocking antibodies by HAI assay against a panel of four viruses matching the HA sequence encoded by the various mRNAs used in the vaccines (Fig 3). The day 42 sera (day 21 post-boost) were also tested against nine influenza viruses having antigenically distinct HA sequences for each influenza subtype. On day 19, the A/Vic/19, A/Dar/21, and A/Aus/19 single mRNA vaccinated mice had substantially high average HAI titers (>1:40) to each of their homologous viruses (Fig 3A–3C). Each of the four quadrivalent mRNA vaccinated groups had high averaged HAI titers (>1:40) to A/Vic/19 (Fig 3A). High-dose (20 μg/dose) quadrivalent vaccine groups, (i.e., Groups 6 and 8) also had high averaged HAI titers (>1:40) to both A/Dar/21 and A/Aus/19 (Fig 3B and 3C). None of the vaccine groups had high average HAI titers (>1:40) to B/Phu/13) (Fig 3D). For A/Vic/19, Groups 2 and 6 had significantly (p<0.05) higher HAI titers than any of the other vaccine groups (Fig 3A). For A/Dar/21, Groups 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 all had significantly higher (p<0.05) HAI titers than any of the other vaccine groups (Fig 3B). Group 4 (B/Aus/19) had significantly (p<0.05) higher average HAI titers than all of the vaccine groups with the exception of Group 8 (quadrivalent 20 ug/dose). There were no significant differences between any of the vaccination groups for the B/Phu/13 virus (Fig 3D).

Fig 3. Day 19 HAI titers.

Fig 3

Cross-reactive antibody responses on day 19 post-vaccination. HAI titers are shown for each vaccine group against the four influenza viruses used in the vaccine. Serum from each mouse was obtained on day 19 post-vaccination. Dotted lines indicate 1:40 HAI titers. Statistical significance was determined by one-way ANOVA (p<0.05).

The day 42 sera (day 21 post-boost) from Groups 2, 6, 7, and 9 all had high average HAI titers (>1:40) to each of the H1N1 viruses (A/Vic/19, A/GM/19, A/ Bris/18), and A/Cal/09 (Fig 4A, 4E, 4I and 4L). Group 8 had high average HAI titers (>1:40) to the A/Vic/19 and A/Bris/18 (Fig 4A and 4I), and Group 3 had high average HAI titers (>1:40) to each of the H3N2 viruses (A/Dar/21), A/Tas/20, A/HK/19, and A/Kan/17 (Fig 4B, 4F, 4J and 4M). Groups 6, 7, 8, and 9 all had high average HAI titers (>1:40) to A/Dar/21 and A/Tas/20. Group 6 also had high average HAI titers (>1:40) to A/Kan/17. Groups 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 had high average HAI titers (>1:40) to B/Aus/19 (Fig 4C). None of the vaccine groups induced an average HAI titer of 1:40 to either B/Wash/19 or B/Col/17 (Fig 4G and 4K). Group 5 had a high average HAI titer (>1:40) to B/Phu/13 and B/Mass/12 (Fig 4D and 4H).

Fig 4. Day 42 HAI titers.

Fig 4

Cross-reactive antibody responses on day 42 post-vaccination. HAI titers are shown for each vaccine group against the four influenza viruses used in the vaccine as well as antigenic variants for each influenza virus subtype. Panels a, e, i and l are H1N1 viruses. Panels b, f, j and m are H3N2 viruses. Panels c, g and k are B/Victoria influenza viruses while panels d and h are B/Yamagata viruses. Serum from each mouse was obtained on day 42 post-vaccination. Dotted lines indicate 1:40 HAI titers. Error bars represent standard mean errors. Statistical significance was determined by one-way ANOVA (p<0.05).

On day 42, Group 2 sera had significantly (p<0.05) higher average HAI titers than Groups 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 for A/Vic/19 (Fig 4A). Group 2 had significantly (p<0.05) higher average HAI titers than Groups 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 for A/GM/19 and A/Cal/09 (Fig 4E and 4L), while Group 2 had significantly (p<0.05) higher average HAI titers than Groups 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 for A/Bris/18 (Fig 4I). For A/Dar/21, Group 3 had significantly (p<0.05) lower HAI titers than Groups 6, 7, and 9 (Fig 4B). Group 3 had significantly (p<0.05) higher HAI titers than Groups 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 for the A/Tas/20 virus (Fig 4F) while Group 3 had significantly (p<0.05) higher average HAI titers than Groups 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 for A/HK/19 virus (Fig 4J). For A/Kan/17, Group 3 had significantly higher (p<0.05) HAI titers than Groups 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9 (Fig 4M). For both the A/Aus/21 and B/Wash/19, Group 4 had significantly (p<0.05) higher average HAI titers than any of the other vaccine groups while for the B/Phu/13 and B/Mass/12 viruses (Fig 4D and 4H), Group 5 had significantly (p<0.05) higher average HAI titers than any of the other vaccine groups. Overall, the HAI titers against the A/Cal/09 correlated with protection from disease.

Neutralization assays

The day 42 post-prime vaccination sera were tested using a neutralization assay (Table 2). Group 2 sera from A/Wis/19 had significantly (p<0.05) higher neutralization titers than Groups 1, 3, 4, and 5 against the A/Vic/19 virus, while Group 2 had significantly (p<0.05) higher neutralization titers than Groups 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 against A/Cal/09. Group 3 sera from A/Dar/21 had significantly (p<0.05) higher neutralization titers than sera from Groups 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. Group 4 sera from B/Aus/21 had significantly (p<0.05) higher neutralization titers than sera from Groups 1, 3, 4, and 5 while sera from Group 5 (B/Phu/13) had significantly (p<0.05) higher neutralization titers than every group tested except for sera from Group 6 (quadrivalent, 20 ug). Overall, the neutralization titers against the A/Cal/09 virus correlated with protection from disease.

Table 2. Mouse neutralization titers.

  A/Vic/19 A/Dar/21 B/Aus/19 B/Phu/13 A/Cal/09
Group 1 5 5 5 5 5
Group 2 560 7 5 6 640
Group 3 40 594 5 6 8
Group 4 8 5 640 24 5
Group 5 7 6 25 555 5
Group 6 622 507 640 453 640
Group 7 640 293 640 199 640
Group 8 640 50 640 95 480
Group 9 640 196 640 380 525

Discussion

The development of a universal influenza vaccine that confers broad and durable protection against a diverse range of circulating influenza viruses is a pursued goal. HA is a major protective antigen recognized by Ab in the response to influenza virus infection or vaccination. There are 18 known IAV HA subtypes and two IBV HA subtypes making a universal vaccine technically and immunologically challenging with the current live and inactivated vaccine technology [10]. Conventional seasonal inactivated influenza vaccines include three (trivalent) or four (quadrivalent) HA subtypes and elicit largely strain-specific immune responses against the HA subtypes included in the vaccine. During the last two decades, there has been broad interest in RNA-based technologies for the development of prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines and several preclinical and clinical studies have shown that mRNA vaccines can provide a safe and effective immune response in animal models and humans [10, 11]. Influenza mRNA vaccines are composed of a synthetic mRNA template encoding a dominant viral antigen, e.g. the HA. The HA mRNA is translated to protein following delivered into a cell, however, to achieve efficient delivery the mRNA is modified to improve its stability, prevent degradation, and enhance translation, and this is encapsulated within a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) [12]. A key advantage of mRNA vaccines compared to conventional vaccines is that they allow for faster and more scalable vaccine production.

In this study, we examined an influenza mRNA vaccine by incorporating the mRNAs from four different influenza viruses including two circulating IAV and two IBVs, where mice were intramuscularly (i.m.) immunized and/or boosting mice, and the serum Ab responses to similar and antigenically distinct influenza virus strains in both HAI and neutralization assays determined. The results showed that mRNA vaccination elicited binding and potent neutralizing serum Abs at day 42 post-vaccination to homologous (matched) HA to all IAV and IBV strains tested. We also evaluated a quadrivalent mRNA vaccine such as one recommended for use in the 2022–2023 season in egg-based vaccines, i.e. A/Wis/19 (H1N1), A/Dar/21, (H3N2), B/Aus/19 (B/Victoria-like), and B/Phu/13 (B/Yamagata-like). The quadrivalent mRNA vaccine we examined consisted of mRNA coding for the HA of A/Vic/19 (H1N1) A/Dar/21 (H3N2), B/Aus/21 (B/Victoria lineage), and B/Phu/13 (B/Yamagata lineage). The rationale was that quadrivalent vaccines are recommended for people 65 years and older, i.e. Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent® vaccine, Flublok Quadrivalent® recombinant influenza vaccine, or Fluad Quadrivalent® adjuvanted flu vaccine [13]. The quadrivalent mRNA vaccines generated antibody titers comparable to the antibodies elicited by the monovalent vaccines to each tested virus. These results showed that the mRNA influenza vaccines induce strain-specific anti-HA responses against each subtype rather than eliciting antibodies that are broadly cross-reactive against a range of HAs. The HAI responses to B/Phuket/3073/2013 were lower than the other antigens. Upon reviewing the mRNA sequence, we determine that there is a single amino acid mutation in a known antigenic site that is likely causing this depressed response.

mRNA requires an effective delivery platform to protect the nucleic acid from degradation and allow for cellular uptake. Lipid nanoparticles (LNP) have been to successfully deliver mRNA, particularly as an LNP-mRNA vaccine in the fight against COVID-19 [14]. For example, two successful COVID-19 vaccines mRNA-1273 [15] and BNT162b [16] use LNPs to deliver mRNA as a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Likewise, mRNA-1440 and mRNA-1851 vaccines are LNP-mRNA encoding HA from H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses, respectively [16, 17]. The vaccine efficacy was evaluated by HAI and neutralization assays where it was shown that a 100 μg dose induced 78% and 87.0% HAI and neutralization, respectively for H10N8, and a 50 μg dose resulted in 96 and 100% neutralization seroconversion for H7N9 [18]. LNP-mRNA vaccines expressing influenza HA have been shown to enhance Ab and T cell activation [9, 19]. mRNA encapsulated in LNP induces a potent cellular and humoral immune response and facilitates the delivery of mRNA for vaccines against several viruses. The features of LNP-mRNA vaccine formulations have been preclinically and clinically investigated which has allowed for the rapid development and clinical use of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Translating the SARS-CoV-2 LNP-mRNA vaccine platform to other viruses is under investigation however instability and the short half-life of mRNA along with potential safety and storage concerns need to be determined before clinical use.

We explored different situations in our mRNA vaccine delivery to mice such as dose, e.g. 5 or 20 μg, boosting, and vaccine injection site (e.g. left or right thigh). The quadrivalent mRNA vaccines generated Ab titers comparable to the monovalent vaccines to each tested virus in both HAI and neutralization assays. The average HAI titers for each vaccine group far exceeded 1:40 to each homologous virus which has been correlated with a 50% reduction in influenza like illness (ILI) in humans and is widely considered to be the minimum protective titer for influenza vaccines [20].

In this study, mice were vaccinated with a mRNA vaccine encoding an H1 HA alone or with quadrivalent mRNA vaccines each containing an H1 HA component. Vaccinated mice had decreased weight loss (disease) and decreased lung viral titers compared to mice not vaccinated with an mRNA encoding an H1 HA. Largely, 5 or 20 ug mRNA vaccination resulted in similarly robust Ab titers when mice were boosted with homologous mRNA vaccines. A single vaccination with 20 μg of quadrivalent mRNA vaccination was mostly equivalent to HAI and neutralization Ab titers of HA derived from IAVs, i.e. A/Vic/19 and A/Dar/21, as well as A/Cal/09, A/GM/19, A/Bris/18, A/Tas/20, A/HK/19, and A/Kan/17. These findings show that 5 or 20 μg of mRNA vaccine encoding H1 HA can induce robust Ab responses to H1N1 and H3N2 IAVs, IBVs, and induce similar levels of B and T cells in the spleen of primed mice at day 5 post-challenge with A/California/04/2009.

Materials and methods

Viruses growth

A/California/04/2009 (H1N1 A/Cal/09), A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1 A/Vic/19), A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019 (H1N1 A/GM/19), A/Brisbane/02/2018 (H1N1 A/Bris/18), A/Darwin/9/2021 (H3N2 A/Dar/21), A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2 A/Tas/20), A/Hong Kong/4801/2019 (H3N2 A/HK/19), A/Kansas/14/2017 (H3N2 A/Kan/17), B/Austria/1359417/2019 (B/Aus/19 Victoria lineage), B/Washington/02/2019 (B/Was/19 Victoria Lineage), B/Colorado/6/2017 (B/Col/17 Victoria lineage), B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage) and B/Massachusetts/02/2012 (B/Phu/13 Yamagata lineage) were obtained from either BEI Resources (Manassas, Virginia) or provided by Dr. Ted Ross at the University of Georgia. Each virus was passaged using Madin-Darby kidney (MDCK) cells as described [21]. Each virus was harvested and aliquoted into tubes that were stored at -80°C. Each virus was titrated using a standard influenza plaque assay explained below.

Mouse vaccinations and challenge

Female BALB/c mice (6–8 weeks old) were purchased from Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, ME). The mice were housed in microisolator units and fed ad libitum. The mice were vaccinated with either 5 μg or 20 μg of mRNA per dose with a lipid-nanoparticle (LNP) dispersion provided by Immorna Biotherapeutics (Morrisville, North Carolina) in a total volume of 100 μL (50 μL/hind quarter). The mice were boosted with the same vaccine formulation and with the same dosage at three weeks post-prime vaccination except for the Group 8 vaccine group which only received one vaccination on day 0. The ‘mock’ vaccinated mice were administered LNP without mRNA. Six mice were included in each vaccination group for a total of 54 mice.

Blood was obtained from the mice by cheek bleeds and collected in blood collection tubes (Sarstedt, Newton, North Carolina) on days 19 and 42 post-vaccination. The blood was centrifuged at 500 xG for seven minutes at room temperature (RT). Serum samples were transferred to new 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tubes and stored at -20°C. Mice were challenged intranasally (i.n.) 2 months post final vaccination. The mice were intraperitoneally (i.p.) anesthetized using Avertin (2,2,2-tribromoethanol) (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and i.n. infected with 104 PFU/mouse of A/California/04/2009 diluted in PBS (Gibco). A clinical sign scoring system was used that included lethargy (n = 1), dyspnea (n = 2), body weight loss <15–20% of original weight, and body weight loss ≥20% of original body weight (n = 3). Any mouse that achieved a score of 3 or higher would be euthanized. No mouse achieved a clinical score requiring euthanasia during this study. Three mice from each group were humanely sacrificed by overdose of euthanasia and cervical dislocation on day 3 post-infection, and their lungs were harvested. The lungs were transferred to gentleMACS tubes (Miltenyi Biotech, Westphalia, Germany) containing 1 mL of DMEM (Gibco) supplemented with antibiotic/antimycotic (Gibco). The tubes were kept on ice until the lungs were homogenized. After homogenization, the lungs were centrifuged (500 xG, 3 min) to pellet the cellular debris, and the supernatants were transferred into fresh 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tubes. All lung homogenates were stored at -80°C to prevent degradation of the virus.

All challenged mice were weighed daily. None of the mice exceeded 20% weight loss from its original weight. No severe clinical symptoms (with a clinical score 3 or higher) requiring the animals to be humanely euthanized were observed. All procedures were performed in accordance with the University of Georgia institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC approval 03-006-Y2-A0).

Hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assay

The hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assay was used to quantify antibodies that bind at or near the receptor-binding site on the HA protein by measuring the inhibition in the agglutination of turkey red blood cells (RBCs) as described [22] and was adapted from the WHO laboratory of influenza surveillance manual. To inactivate nonspecific inhibitors, the sera were treated with a receptor-destroying enzyme (RDE) (Denka Seiken Company, Chuo, Tokyo) prior to being tested. Briefly, three parts RDE were added to one-part sera and incubated overnight at 37°C. RDE was inactivated by incubating the serum-RDE mixture at 56°C for approximately 45 min and following incubation six parts PBS was added to the RDE-treated sera. RDE-treated sera were two-fold serially diluted in U-bottom microtiter plates (Corning, New York). An equal volume of each virus was adjusted to approximately 8 hemagglutination units (HAU) per 0.025 mL and was added to each well of the U-bottom microtiter plates (Corning). The plates were covered and incubated at RT for 20 min before adding 0.05 mL of RBCs which were allowed to settle for 30 min at RT.

The HAI titer was determined from the reciprocal dilution of the last well that contained non-agglutinated RBCs. Positive and negative serum controls were included on each plate. At the beginning of the study, mice were negative (HAI titer of <1:10) for antibodies to each of the four viruses used in the vaccines. Seroprotection was defined as a HAI titer ≥1:40.

Determination of viral lung titers

Lung homogenates were thawed then 10-fold serial dilutions of the lung homogenates were overlaid on MDCK cells. The MDCK cells were at >90% confluency at the time that the assay was performed. Lung homogenate samples were incubated for 60 min at RT with gentle mixing every 15 min. After 60 min, the serial dilutions were removed and the MDCK cells were washed with serum-free Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM, Gibco, Thermo Fisher). The medium was removed and replaced with 1 mL of a mixture of plaque media and 2.0% agarose (Sigma, St. Louis, MO). Plaque media contained MEM, HEPES, and L-Glutamine (all from Gibco). The MDCK cells were incubated at 37°C with 5% CO2 for 48h. After 72h, the agarose overlay was removed and the cells were washed with PBS. MDCK cells were fixed with 10% neutral buffered formalin (Fisher Scientific) for 15 min. The formalin was subsequently discarded, and the MDCK cells were stained using 1% crystal violet (Sigma). The stained MDCK cells were then washed with distilled water to remove the crystal violet, virus plaques were counted and PFU per mL titer was calculated using the number of colonies and the dilution factor. The limit of detection for viral plaque titers was 50 PFU/mL.

Neutralization assays

A virus neutralization assay was used to identify the presence of influenza virus-specific neutralizing antibodies [23]. The protocol was adapted from the WHO influenza surveillance manual [24]. Briefly, equal amounts of sera from each mouse within a vaccination group were combined and heat-inactivated for 30 min at 56°C. MDCK cells were grown in a 96-well flat bottom plate until they had reached 95–100% confluency. Antibodies were diluted in ½-log increments with serum-free media and incubated with 100x TCID50 for 1 h. The antibody-virus mixture was added to serum-free DMEM-washed MDCK cells in the 96-well plate. After 2 h, the MDCK cells were washed with serum-free DMEM. Next, 0.02 mL of DMEM with antibiotics/antimycotics (Gibco) and 2.0 ug/mL of TPCK trypsin (Thermo Fisher) was added to each of the 96 wells. The cell monolayers in the back-titration control wells were checked daily until cytopathic effect (CPE). After three days, 0.05 uL of media/well was removed and used in an HA assay to identify the presence of the virus. The remaining media in each well was removed, and the MDCK cells were fixed with 10% buffered formalin (Fisher Scientific) for 15 min. The formalin was then discarded, and the MDCK cells were stained using 1% crystal violet (Sigma). The MDCK cells were then washed with distilled water to remove the crystal violet. CPE was defined as the lysis (dissolution) of the host cell monolayer.

Statistical analysis

Statistical significance was defined as a p<0.05. For HAI and neutralization assays, a titer of 1:5 was used as the limit of detection. The limit of detection for viral plaque titers was 50 pfu/mL. A one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s ad-hoc test was used for the HAI, neutralization, and plaque assays. A two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s ad-hoc test was used for weight loss with a statistical significance defined as a p<0.05.

Data Availability

I have uploaded the data to ‘Open Science Framework’ DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/S6Z7X.

Funding Statement

Immorna provided support in the form of salaries for author Z. Beau Reneer but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

References

  • 1.Krammer F, Smith GJD, Fouchier RAM, Peiris M, Kedzierska K, Doherty PC, et al. Influenza. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018;4(1):3. doi: 10.1038/s41572-018-0002-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chen Y, Wang F, Yin L, Jiang H, Lu X, Bi Y, et al. Structural basis for a human broadly neutralizing influenza A hemagglutinin stem-specific antibody including H17/18 subtypes. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):7603. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-35236-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Caini S, Kusznierz G, Garate VV, Wangchuk S, Thapa B, de Paula Junior FJ, et al. The epidemiological signature of influenza B virus and its B/Victoria and B/Yamagata lineages in the 21st century. PLoS One. 2019;14(9):e0222381. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222381 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cianci R, Newton EE, Pagliari D. Efforts to Improve the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine. Vaccines (Basel). 2020;8(4). doi: 10.3390/vaccines8040645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hollingsworth R, El Guerche-Seblain C, Tsai T, Vasiliev Y, Lee S, Bright H, et al. Assessment of the benefits of seasonal influenza vaccination: Elements of a framework to interpret estimates of vaccine effectiveness and support robust decision-making and communication. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2021;15(1):164–74. doi: 10.1111/irv.12786 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Chavda VP, Soni S, Vora LK, Soni S, Khadela A, Ajabiya J. mRNA-Based Vaccines and Therapeutics for COVID-19 and Future Pandemics. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;10(12). doi: 10.3390/vaccines10122150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Arevalo CP, Bolton MJ, Le Sage V, Ye N, Furey C, Muramatsu H, et al. A multivalent nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine against all known influenza virus subtypes. Science. 2022;378(6622):899–904. doi: 10.1126/science.abm0271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.McMahon M, O’Dell G, Tan J, Sarkozy A, Vadovics M, Carreno JM, et al. Assessment of a quadrivalent nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine that protects against group 2 influenza viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022;119(45):e2206333119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2206333119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Alameh MG, Tombacz I, Bettini E, Lederer K, Sittplangkoon C, Wilmore JR, et al. Lipid nanoparticles enhance the efficacy of mRNA and protein subunit vaccines by inducing robust T follicular helper cell and humoral responses. Immunity. 2021;54(12):2877–92 e7. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2021.11.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Subbarao K, Matsuoka Y. The prospects and challenges of universal vaccines for influenza. Trends Microbiol. 2013;21(7):350–8. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2013.04.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Qin S, Tang X, Chen Y, Chen K, Fan N, Xiao W, et al. mRNA-based therapeutics: powerful and versatile tools to combat diseases. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7(1):166. doi: 10.1038/s41392-022-01007-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pilkington EH, Suys EJA, Trevaskis NL, Wheatley AK, Zukancic D, Algarni A, et al. From influenza to COVID-19: Lipid nanoparticle mRNA vaccines at the frontiers of infectious diseases. Acta Biomater. 2021;131:16–40. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2021.06.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kuehn BM. More Effective Flu Vaccines Recommended for Older Adults. JAMA. 2022;328(6):519. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.12520 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hou X, Zaks T, Langer R, Dong Y. Lipid nanoparticles for mRNA delivery. Nat Rev Mater. 2021;6(12):1078–94. doi: 10.1038/s41578-021-00358-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Baden LR, El Sahly HM, Essink B, Kotloff K, Frey S, Novak R, et al. Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(5):403–16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2035389 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, Absalon J, Gurtman A, Lockhart S, et al. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(27):2603–15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fang E, Liu X, Li M, Zhang Z, Song L, Zhu B, et al. Advances in COVID-19 mRNA vaccine development. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7(1):94. doi: 10.1038/s41392-022-00950-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Feldman RA, Fuhr R, Smolenov I, Mick Ribeiro A, Panther L, Watson M, et al. mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses of pandemic potential are immunogenic and well tolerated in healthy adults in phase 1 randomized clinical trials. Vaccine. 2019;37(25):3326–34. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.04.074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.van de Ven K, Lanfermeijer J, van Dijken H, Muramatsu H, Vilas Boas de Melo C, Lenz S, et al. A universal influenza mRNA vaccine candidate boosts T cell responses and reduces zoonotic influenza virus disease in ferrets. Sci Adv. 2022;8(50):eadc9937. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adc9937 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jacobsen H, Rajendran M, Choi A, Sjursen H, Brokstad KA, Cox RJ, et al. Influenza Virus Hemagglutinin Stalk-Specific Antibodies in Human Serum are a Surrogate Marker for In Vivo Protection in a Serum Transfer Mouse Challenge Model. mBio. 2017;8(5). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Xue J, Chambers BS, Hensley SE, Lopez CB. Propagation and Characterization of Influenza Virus Stocks That Lack High Levels of Defective Viral Genomes and Hemagglutinin Mutations. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:326. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ovsyannikova IG, White SJ, Albrecht RA, Garcia-Sastre A, Poland GA. Turkey versus guinea pig red blood cells: hemagglutination differences alter hemagglutination inhibition responses against influenza A/H1N1. Viral Immunol. 2014;27(4):174–8. doi: 10.1089/vim.2013.0111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Truelove S, Zhu H, Lessler J, Riley S, Read JM, Wang S, et al. A comparison of hemagglutination inhibition and neutralization assays for characterizing immunity to seasonal influenza A. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2016;10(6):518–24. doi: 10.1111/irv.12408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Cuevas F, Kawabata H, Krammer F, Carreno JM. An In Vitro Microneutralization Assay for Influenza Virus Serology. Curr Protoc. 2022;2(7):e465. doi: 10.1002/cpz1.465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Victor C Huber

7 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-35405mRNA Vaccines Encoding Influenza Virus Hemagglutinin (HA) Elicits Immunity in Mice from Influenza A Virus ChallengePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Reneer,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. During the revision process, please pay attention to the comments regarding overall experimental design (and impact of these findings), use of the challenge virus, and interpretation of findings in the overall context of the project.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 21 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Victor C Huber

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice,  and (2) efforts to alleviate suffering.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "Immorna-funded the research study."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: "The authors Thornhill-Wadolowski, Feng, Bugno, and Truax are employees of Immorna who provided the mRNA-LNP vaccines."   

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Immorna 

     1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. 

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. 

     2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

7. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

8. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Summary: The authors immunised mice with a quadrivalent influenza mRNA vaccine or individual components. They measured antibody responses against a broad range of viruses and protection against H1N1 challenge.

Major comments:

1. The introduction needs expanding on other studies that have used mRNA vaccines for influenza to put the work into context. At present it is one paragraph of introduction and then another paragraph summarising the current studies.

2. The work could be more ambitious in scope – for example challenge with a different virus to show the benefits of combining the mRNA vaccines. The cross neutralisation data is of interest, but the rest of the manuscript is light on experiments – it could be compressed to 2 or maybe 3 figures at the moment.

Minor comments:

1. Rather than saying group 1-10 in numbers put what they received on the graphs, it is very hard to read.

2. Why are only some groups challenged with virus

3. Y axis scale is wrong on the weight loss graph.

4. Figures 3 and 4 put the virus strains above each graph

5. Figure 5 present as individual points

Reviewer #2: This manuscript reports results of investigation of the protection of single and quadrivalent mRNA vaccination. Four different influenza viruses including two influenza A viruses (IAV) and two influenza B (IBV) were designed to protect mice from influenza virus strain attack. Then, antibody tites, viral lung titers, number of lymphocytes were detected.

This is a interesting research. It provide data support for future applications.

There are some scientific questions that need to be clarified in the results or discussion:

1.Materials and methods, How many animals were used in this experiment? How many animals were used in each group and do they all have pathogenic symptoms?

2.Why did the author use A/California/04/2009 as the challenge strain? Is this strain still representative at present? What would happen if the current epidemic strain were used for the challenge?

3.Table 2, A/Dar/21 and B/Phu/13 strains produced low antibody titers, especially group 8, Why?

4.Figure 1, Why the weight value of group 3 was low, even lower than the control (group 1)?

5.Figure 2, why the vaccine provided complete protection in groups 2 and 6? Is there any correlation between immune and challenge strains?

6.Figure 3 D and Figure 4 D, it was low levels of HAI antibodies immunized with the Phuket/3073/2013 strain in group 5, why?

7.Figure 4 D and H, The mixed vaccine also did not produce significant antibodies. Why? It is necessary to discuss the characteristics of the strain.

8.Figure 5, where are 4 and 5 groups?

9.Figure 5, I think that it may not provide significant result. The number of T cells would significant change only in consumptive or critical diseases. It is more meaningful to analyze the number of T cells that can secrete specific cytokines.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (<a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process#loc-peer-revie

PLoS One. 2024 Apr 18;19(4):e0297833. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297833.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Dec 2023

Reviewer 1:

Major comments:

1. The introduction needs expanding on other studies that have used mRNA vaccines for influenza to put the work into context. At present it is one paragraph of introduction and then another paragraph summarising the current studies.

We thank the reviewer for their comment. We have added a paragraph discussing other mRNA influenza vaccine studies.

2. The work could be more ambitious in scope – for example challenge with a different virus to show the benefits of combining the mRNA vaccines. The cross neutralization data is of interest, but the rest of the manuscript is light on experiments – it could be compressed to 2 or maybe 3 figures at the moment.

We thank the reviewer for their comment. We plan to expand our experiments with future studies, but we feel that the number of figures and tables is appropriate for this manuscript. We will take this comment into consideration to improve the studies for our future manuscripts.

Minor comments:

1. Rather than saying group 1-10 in numbers put what they received on the graphs, it is very hard to read.

We thank the reviewer for their comment. We have added labels for clarification.

2. Why are only some groups challenged with virus

We thank the reviewer for their comment. We had excluded Groups 4 and 5 from several figures due to mice in each group having to be sacrificed. We have included the weight loss data for the mice in for these groups in figure 1 and added clarification in lines 113-15 explaining these group exclusions from figure 2.

3. Y axis scale is wrong on the weight loss graph.

We thank the reviewer for their comment. We have corrected this error.

4. Figures 3 and 4 put the virus strains above each graph

We thank the reviewer for their comment. We have added the stains for clarification.

5. Figure 5 present as individual points

We thank the reviewer for their comment. Due to several comments about this figure, we have completely removed the figure from the manuscript.

Reviewer 2:

1.Materials and methods, How many animals were used in this experiment? How many animals were used in each group and do they all have pathogenic symptoms?

We thank the reviewer for their comment. We have added information on lines 289-299.

2.Why did the author use A/California/04/2009 as the challenge strain? Is this strain still representative at present? What would happen if the current epidemic strain were used for the challenge?

A/California/04/2009 is a well-established challenge virus for influenza vaccine studies (doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2011.02.001, doi: 10.1128/JVI.00076-13). A/California/04/2009 is a pH1N1 virus that is the same lineage that still circulates today. In our study, we wanted to challenge with an antigenically distinct H1N1 virus to ensure that our vaccine was electing a broadly cross-reactive antibody response and not a narrow antibody response only to the HA antigen that was used in the vaccine.

3.Table 2, A/Dar/21 and B/Phu/13 strains produced low antibody titers, especially group 8, Why?

We thank the reviewer for their comment. H3N2 and Influenza B strains are much less immunogenic than H1N1 strains. Group 8 is a single vaccination while all other groups received 2 vaccinations which is likely the reason for the lower titers.

4.Figure 1, Why the weight value of group 3 was low, even lower than the control (group 1)?

We thank the reviewer for their comment. While it appears that there is slight difference on days 4 and 5 between these groups (as well as groups 4 and 5 that were added to this figure), these differences are not statistically significant.

5.Figure 2, why the vaccine provided complete protection in groups 2 and 6? Is there any correlation between immune and challenge strains?

We thank the reviewer for their comment. Group 2 and 6 had high HAI titers to Cal/09 (Figure 4). HAI titers are often highly correlated with low lung viral titers. Groups 2 and 6 likely had Ab titers high enough to limit viral replication to below the limit of detection for the plaque assay.

6.Figure 3 D and Figure 4 D, it was low levels of HAI antibodies immunized with the Phuket/3073/2013 strain in group 5, why?

We thank the reviewer for their comment. There is a single amino acid mismatch between the vaccination strain and the Phuket/3073/2013 virus used in figures 3 and 4. This is stated in lines 243-245.

7.Figure 4 D and H, The mixed vaccine also did not produce significant antibodies. Why? It is necessary to discuss the characteristics of the strain.

We thank the reviewer for their comment. The amino acid mutation is likely causing lower titers in panel D. The results in panel H are showing an antigenically distinct B/Yamagata strain. These results are similar to the antigenically distinct B/Victoria strain in panel G. None of the mixed vaccine produced high antibody titers to any of the antigenically distinct IBVs. This is likely due to the low immunogenicity of IBV HA proteins.

8.Figure 5, where are 4 and 5 groups?

We thank the reviewer for their comment. Due to several comments about this figure, we have completely removed the figure from the manuscript.

9.Figure 5, I think that it may not provide significant result. The number of T cells would significant change only in consumptive or critical diseases. It is more meaningful to analyze the number of T cells that can secrete specific cytokines.

We thank the reviewer for their comment. Due to several comments about this figure, we have completely removed the figure from the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0297833.s001.docx (25.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Victor C Huber

14 Jan 2024

mRNA Vaccines Encoding Influenza Virus Hemagglutinin (HA) Elicits Immunity in Mice from Influenza A Virus Challenge

PONE-D-23-35405R1

Dear Dr. Reneer,

Thank you for responding to the comments from the previous review and for presenting data that contributes to the research on mRNA vaccines against influenza viruses.  No further modifications are needed as there were no additional comments regarding improvements for the data presented.

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.  

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Victor C Huber

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: My main concern was there was not enough substance to the paper. The authors have added no new experiments.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Victor C Huber

8 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-35405R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Reneer,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Victor C Huber

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0297833.s001.docx (25.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    I have uploaded the data to ‘Open Science Framework’ DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/S6Z7X.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES