Skip to main content
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics logoLink to Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics
. 2021 Mar 26;17(8):2454–2470. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1885280

A review of the BCG vaccine and other approaches toward tuberculosis eradication

Thomas Cho a, Christopher Khatchadourian a, Huy Nguyen a, Yash Dara a, Shuna Jung a, Vishwanath Venketaraman a,b,
PMCID: PMC8475575  PMID: 33769193

ABSTRACT

Despite aggressive eradication efforts, Tuberculosis (TB) remains a global health burden, one that disproportionally affects poorer, less developed nations. The only vaccine approved for TB, the Bacillus of Calmette and Guérin (BCG) vaccine remains controversial because it’s stated efficacy has been cited as anywhere from 0 to 80%. Nevertheless, there have been exciting discoveries about the mechanism of action of the BCG vaccine that suggests it has a role in immunization schedules today. We review recent data suggesting the vaccine imparts protection against both tuberculosis and non-tuberculosis pathogens via a newly discovered immune system called trained immunity. BCG’s efficacy also appears to be tied to its affect on granulocytes at the epigenetic and hematopoietic stem cell levels, which we discuss in this article at length. We also write about how the different strains of the BCG vaccine elicit different immune responses, suggesting that certain BCG strains are more immunogenic than others. Finally, our review delves into how the current vaccine is being reformulated to be more efficacious, and track the development of the next generation vaccines against TB.

KEYWORDS: BCG, Tuberculosis, TB Vaccines, Trained Immunity

Introduction

Although nearly eradicated in developed countries, tuberculosis (TB), the disease caused by the bacteria Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tb), is estimated to have infected over a quarter of the world’s population and remains the global leading cause of death by a single pathogen.1 Despite the existence of a standardized antibiotic regimen against TB, issues with access to medicine, the rise of Multidrug Resistance TB (MDR-TB) and Extreme Multidrug-resistant TB (XMDR-TB) continue to make TB a global public health burden.1 In areas where TB burden is low, disease prevention is mainly controlled with proper hygiene and screening, vaccination being neither required nor recommended. It is only in areas with a high TB burden where the BCG vaccine is given regularly. The discrepancy in recommendations is due in part to large inconsistencies in the efficacy of the vaccine, which ranges from 0% to 80% effective in preventing for the prevention of TB.2

This review paper gives a brief overview of the pathophysiology of TB and the historical background of the development of the BCG vaccine. We also discuss a possible mechanism of action of the vaccine, which involves its ability to attenuate a lesser-known immune system called trained immunity. The vaccine appears to also invoke epigenetic reprogramming in hematopoietic stem cells. Finally, we discuss the work being done to change the route of administration of the vaccine, and briefly introduce the numerous approaches toward either augmenting the efficacy of the current vaccine or develop a new vaccine to supersede BCG.

Pathophysiology of tuberculosis

TB is an airborne infection spread by aerosolized particles harboring tubercle bacilli, the etiological agent of the disease.3 Tubercle bacilli most commonly infects the airways and lungs of exposed individuals.3,4 Following inoculation in the new host, tubercle bacilli are phagocytosed primarily by macrophages and dendritic cells which aggregate into structures called granulomas.3 M. tb, the primary causative agent of TB disease, persists within immune cells by evading multiple cellular pathways and organelles, particularly with the endocytic and autophagic pathways. The ability to disrupt autophagy allows intracellular persistence of M. tb.3 Patient immunocompetency is crucial to the development of TB disease as immunocompromised groups have more severe disease manifestations.4

Current BCG immunization protocol

The BCG vaccine is the only vaccine currently recommended for the prevention of TB. Vaccination recommendations vary between countries, with endemicity of TB often being the basis for issuing recommendations.5–7 Universal recommendation of the BCG vaccine is commonplace in most countries.5,6 These countries either recommend single dose administration, or utilize schedules encompassing multiple doses.1,5,7 The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends vaccinating neonates residing in high-incidence TB and/or Leprosy settings with a single dose of the BCG vaccine at birth.1 Furthermore, neonates residing in low-incidence settings and at high risk of contracting TB disease and/or Leprosy should also be considered for vaccination.6 High-risk neonates, defined as those with close contact to currently or previously infected individuals. Repeat BCG vaccination is not currently recommended by the WHO as evidence arguing its efficacy is insufficient.4 Despite its wide range of purported efficacy in preventing primary TB, with many studies predicting efficacy anywhere between 0 and 80%, the BCG vaccine continues to be a mandatory vaccine for much of the world.4,6 The vaccine’s strong safety profile, measured as one major side effect from vaccine administration per one million doses administered to immunocompetent individuals, may also be a reason for its continued use in TB endemic countries.4

Vaccine efficacy may be dependent on vaccine strain

One hypothesis for the wide efficacy range is the genotypic differences within the BCG vaccine. The vaccine, was first produced by passing a pathogenic Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis) strain over 230 times throughout a period of 10 years, which eventually led to its attenuation.2 Once the vaccine’s efficacy was established, Calmette and Guerin distributed their strain globally in 1924 to regions that requested their newfound vaccine. Eventually, geographical isolation permitted independent mutations among samples, promoting genotypic variation between once identical strains.8

More recent advancements in genomic sequencing laid light to these genotypic changes, termed regions of differentiation (RD). From these studies emerged at least 16 different RDs in the world’s supply of BCG vaccines.8 Further studies into the strains found an additional 14 different sub-strains, each named after the region in which they were distributed to.8 Six of the most researched sub-strains are BCG Tokyo (BCG Japan), BCG TICE, BCG Danish, BCG Pasteur, BCG China, and BCG Prague. BCG strain distribution tends to be regional, and international vaccine distribution is mainly controlled by UNICEF, who receives its BCG vaccine from four suppliers.8 These four suppliers produce three vaccine strains: BCG Denmark, BCG Russia, and BCG Japan.1,8

Early research identifying variation in efficacy between individual strains is sparse, conflicting, and in many cases, poorly designed: either demographics were uncontrolled, studies were not randomized, nonpopular strains were used, or endpoints/immune markers were not equivalently analyzed.9–11 Nevertheless there is some preliminary data that suggests different strains produce differing immunological responses.8

A randomized trial in Australia on 288 infants assigned to one of three treatment groups (BCG Denmark, BCG Japan, BCG Russia) showed infants vaccinated with BCG Denmark and BCG Japan had a larger polyclonal CD4 T cell response accompanied by a greater increase in associated cytokines when compared to infants vaccinated with BCG Russia.8 A more current study found some association between administration of BCG Beijing with higher levels of TB drug resistance later on in life.11 A very interesting case out of Orizaba, Mexico the BCG strain given affects the immune response. Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells (PBMCs) were harvested from neonates who had received one of three different BCG strains, which were then infected in vitro by M. tb.12 Subsequent analysis found different BCG strains elicited very different cytokine expression profiles.12 Most importantly, they found that vaccination with BCG-Brazil or BCG-Denmark induced cytokines involved in the adaptive immune system, while BCG-Japan strain-induced proinflammatory response and memory formation.12 The relationship between BCG strain and immune response was also seen in a study conducted in Nigeria and South Africa, where CD4 T cell responses following BCG vaccination were more robust and durable following inoculation with BCG-Denmark over BCG-Russia or BCG-Bulgaria.13 Finally, variation in immune response between vaccine strains was also noted among murine model studies,14 and dosage/route of administration also seems to affect the immune response.15 Although vaccine efficacy cannot be extrapolated from these findings, it is safe to say that different strains induce different immunological response profiles. Further research into the immunological response to the BCG vaccine has led to another theory of how the BCG vaccine might protect against TB known as trained immunity.

BCG vaccine response may trigger “trained immunity” in the innate immune system

Human immunity is classically parsed into two distinct systems, the more nonspecific but broad spectrum coverage innate system and the highly specific and memory driven adaptive system, which is also termed cell-mediated immunity and humoral immunity.16 Classical teachings in immunology suggests that innate immunity, though highly effective, produces no “memory” after an attack and instead relies on chemokine gradients and physiologic changes to clear infections.16 Recent discoveries by Dr Netea Mihai suggest a memory component in the innate immune system, which she has coined “trained immunity”.17 The immunological background of trained immunity is based on the resistance mechanisms of plants. First postulated by Kenneth Chester in 1933 and later coined “systemic acquired resistance” (SAR), plants inoculated with a specific pathogen gained immunity to a number of pathogens, including those which the plant was never exposed to.17

While the exact mechanisms of trained immunity remain unknown, early data suggests that cross protection may trigger “heightened” alertness in the innate immune system .18 Garly et. al discovered that children with a BCG scar and a positive tuberculin reaction residing in high mortality areas of Guinea Bissau had overall lower mortality than children with no history of receiving the BCG vaccine. No similar trend was observed in children who had received previous diphtheria or tetanus immunization.18 Roth et. al discovered that children who received the BCG vaccine had lower mortality rates than their non-BCG vaccinated peers against malaria, further suggesting that BCG vaccination confers some form of protection against non-tuberculous diseases.19 Conferred protection spans mycobacterial pathogens like M. leprae,20 viruses, like Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV),21 intestinal nematodes,22 and yeast, like Candida.18 Further in vitro studies revealed human adult monocytes receiving the BCG vaccine had increased IFN-y production two weeks and three months following S aureus and C albicans inoculation.23 More importantly, these augmentations to the immune system were intact one year after initial vaccination.23 A persistent increase in pro-inflammatory cytokine production post in vitro LPS-mediated challenge remained. Additionally, increased concentrations of pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), specifically Toll-Like Receptor 4 (TLR4), TLR2, and C type lectins on monocytes, were also observed.23

This idea of using the BCG vaccine as a broad-spectrum immunization was first tested in the elderly. The ACTIVATE (a randomized clinical trial for enhanced trained immune responses through BCG vaccination to prevent infection of the elderly) trial concluded its phase 3 randomized control trial in Greece in 2019 after administering either the BCG vaccine or a placebo in 202 patients on the last day of hospitalization.24 As this population is very susceptible to infection, efficacy of the vaccination was measured via time to first infection between those receiving BCG against placebo, and blood samples were drawn in 57 patients (31 placebo and 26 BCG vaccinated) to assess cytokine levels and PBMC activation. Overall, BCG vaccinated individuals had a significantly increased “time to first infection time “over the placebo cohort – 16 weeks vs 11 weeks .24 In addition, analysis of the PBMCs showed enhanced cytokine response to potential pathogens, specifically IL-6 and TNF-alpha.

Finally, using the yellow fever vaccine (YFV) as a model for an in vivo viral infection, BCG vaccination was shown to provide cross immunization against non-tuberculosis infections.25 YFV is a live-attenuated viral vaccine, and YFV viremia peaks on the fifth day following vaccination.26 Analysis of YFV concentrations in subjects who were administered a BCG vaccine 1 month prior to a YFV vaccine found lower concentrations of YFV in samples, as well as a lower circulating concentration of proinflammatory cytokines.25 Notably, ex vivo infection of PBMCs gathered from the YFV and BCG vaccinated subjected with C. albicans showed higher levels of IL-1b expression and subsequent lower YFV viremia concentrations. IL-1b has been shown to be an important marker of trained immunity activation,27 suggesting that BCG vaccination offers some sort of cross immune protection against non-tuberculosis infections.25

Activation of natural killer cells might influence immune response to BCG vaccine

Another emerging hypothesis on the mechanism of trained immunity focuses on the actions of Natural Killer (NK) cells.28 As part of the innate immune system, these should not harbor memory. Recent studies, however, have shown that murine and human NK cells augment IFN-y release upon reinfection.27,29 NK cells promote phagolysosome fusion within antigen-presenting cells (APCs) infected by M. tb, thus increasing M. tb killing.30 According to Dhiman et. al, this is accomplished by the release of IL-22, a cytokine also released by memory CD4 + T cells in response to infections.30 IL-22 was thought to trigger the release of antimicrobial peptides via direct induction.30,31 Experiments performed by Dhiman showed that the release of IL-22 by CD4 T cells caused intracellular mycobacterial growth arrest, thus supporting previous predictions.30

NK cells may also induce the production of proinflammatory cytokines in response to unrelated pathogens following periods of 2 weeks and 3-months post BCG vaccination.29 In a series of animal and human trials, Kleinnijenhuis et. al demonstrated that proinflammatory markers such as IFN-y and IL1 in humans increased post BCG vaccination23,27,29,32 following an in vitro challenge of blood samples against Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureus.29 A similar increase in proinflammatory markers was seen among mice vaccinated with BCG followed by infection with C. albicans.29 The importance of the NK cell response in BCG vaccine-induced cross protection against unrelated pathogens was further studied in mice with severe immunodeficiency (SCID).32 SCID mice vaccinated with BCG prior to challenge with lethal candida had a 100% survival rate compared to the 30% survival rate seen in control mice.29 The importance of NK cells in BCG-induced immunity was discovered when the same test was administered among NOD/SCID/IL2Ry (NSG) mice.29 These mice not only lacked the B and T cell activation seen in SCID mice, but also lacked functional NK cells.23 Following intravenous candida infection, all normal mice vaccinated with BCG survived, but the survival rate for NSG mice fell to about 70% despite receiving the vaccine. This suggested that NK cells have a crucial role in cross protection, and that BCG vaccination was necessary to induce cross protection.23

The BCG vaccine and its epigenetic effects

The upregulation of PRRs seen after BCG vaccination also seems to be mediated by epigenetics.23 Expression of PRRs like TLR4 and MR on monocytes were elevated in BCG vaccinated subjects when compared to unvaccinated subjects,23 remaining so even one year post-vaccination.23 Therefore, investigations into how a more reactive immune response to M. tb infections is activated have led to findings that suggest epigenetic programming is involved.

When BCG was used as a replacement for mycobacterial infection in mice, researchers discovered an increase in IL-15 production from phagocytes infected with M. bovis, the mycobacterial strain of the BCG vaccine.33 IL-15 has been shown to stimulate NK cell production of IFN-y.33 Thus, its release in the face of mycobacterial challenge is of great interest. IL-15 production at the mRNA and protein levels was detected in mice following in vitro BCG inoculation,33 noteworthy support of BCG’s ability to affect immunity at the epigenetic level. Furthermore, levels of IFN-y in serum were significantly higher in mice with upregulated Il-15 expression than at baseline.33

Further research into the composition of BCG vaccinated vs. unvaccinated monocytes showed differences in key receptors.32 Monocytes from humans who were vaccine-naïve showed significant increase in TLR4 expression following BCG vaccinatio .32 Alongside CD14 and CD11b expression, TLR4 expression remained elevated 3 months post immunization.32 This suggests that BCG vaccination caused some form of monocyte “training”, via one or several signaling pathways. Kleinnijenhuis, et al. inhibited receptors on monocytes exposed to BCG in vitro, specifically TLR2, TLR4, and NOD2.32 Successful education was determined by proinflammatory cytokine expression levels following training and subsequent exposure to a non-mycobacterial challenge.32 Of the three receptors, only monocytes from NOD2 deficient patients failed to mount a noticeable cytokine response to the challenge,32 suggesting that monocyte education is an epigenetic process that is influenced by the NOD2 pathway.

These experiments strongly suggest BCG vaccination’s ability to incite epigenetic reprogramming of monocytes via changes in the expression of certain receptors.27,32,33 A more recent paper suggests that epigenetic modification affects hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) differentiation in the bone marrow,34 leading to the development of monocytes specifically programmed to recognize M. tb. Compared to B and T cells, monocytes and macrophages have very short lifespans,34 therefore, hypotheses suggest that any memory component the vaccine imparts begins at the stem cell level.32,34 Kaufman et. al administered BCG-TICE via IV into mice and found the attenuated strain in bone marrow34 where it remained detectable for up to 7 months post vaccination.34 This persistence of the vaccine in close proximity to HSCs, supported the idea that BCG may cause HSC expansion. Indeed, after tracking bone marrow (BM) expansion via the HSC progenitor lineage LKS+ population in both BCG vaccinated and non-vaccinated mice, it was only seen in the vaccinated group.34 Transcriptomic data from this experiment showed BCG immunized HSCs favored myeloid lineage lymphocyte proliferation, upregulation of IFN-dependent gene expression, and increased production of “trained” monocytes/macrophages which were more effective in producing antimycobacterial immunity via elevated expression of IFN-y, TNF-α, and IL-10.34 These effects were established by the different histone modifications seen between BCG primed and non-primed monocytes,34 specifically H3K27 acetylation and H3K4 trimethylation.32,34 These findings were noted prior to subsequent M. tb challenge, further suggesting that BCG’s efficacy as a vaccine might begin via epigenetic modifications. Notably, H3K27 acetylation was also found in PMBCs studied in the aforementioned ACTIVATE trial, though the authors conceded that their sample size was too small to draw a direct correlation between their findings and any further implication of epigenetic changes.24

The aforementioned study on YFV viremia also showed epigenetic changes that attenuated specific proinflammatory pathways following vaccination.25 Monocytes that had been primed with BCG had enhanced IL-8 and IL-1b expression following YFV introduction, both in cytokine and mRNA concentrations.25 Interestingly, these expression levels remained low if the monocytes were also treated with a histone methyltransferase inhibitor, suggesting the expression is correlated to histone/epigenetic modifications.25 The epigenetic changes evident in the murine model were later confirmed to occur in humans in vivo. After administering the BCG vaccine in 15 healthy but BCG naïve individuals, Cirovic, et. al analyzed blood count, PBMCs, immune activation markers, and bone marrow aspirates immediately following vaccination, then 14- and 90-days post vaccination.35 While there were no changes in the number of mature myeloid or myeloid progenitor populations in either the peripheral blood or bone marrow, there was evidence of transcriptional and epigenetic changes as long as 90 days post vaccination.35 Transcriptome analysis completed on the BM aspirates and PBMCs revealed increased upregulation of genes associated with myeloid and granulocyte activation pathways, with additional Gene Ontology Enrichment Analysis (GOEA) of the enriched pathways finding genes associated with neutrophil activation (such as those from the SERPINA family) and transcription factor (TF) activity being affected the most.35 Furthermore, the transcriptomic changes in the epigenome of CD14+ macrophages in BCG vaccinated individuals were different compared to the nonvaccinated population.35 These upregulated pathways were consistent with the same pathways found in HSCs, suggesting that the epigenetic changes caused by vaccination was imprinted into the progenitor cell line and passed into the succeeding individual cells.

Different routes of BCG vaccination

There has also been a considerable push to reformulate the current BCG vaccine, which is administered intradermally (ID), into an oral vaccine.36 Oral administration is cheaper, requires limited medical skill to administer, easier to distribute, and is a familiar route to most people. Direct mucosal exposure to the vaccine is considered highly immunogenic37 but formulating a vaccine into a form that can withstand the degrading properties of mucosa, especially the stomach, has limited its use.36

One possible means around this problem is to coat the dry powder form of the vaccine in Eudragit copolymers.38 Already used in enteric coating formulations of ibuprofen and other oral medications, this coating is acid-resistant and protects against early degradation of the drug.38 From a materials science perspective, this study was a success in creating a modern day oral tablet form of this vaccine, but the authors found that the immense pressure needed to compact the BCG powder to a digestible size lead to decreased efficacy via death of the live attenuated bacteria that make the vaccine.38 Future oral BCG vaccines therefore need to take into consideration not only the size of an oral tablet, but also the number of viable colonies that might exist per administration.

Oral administration of the vaccine is also being meticulously studied in animal sciences. European badgers (meles meles) are a major reservoir host for bovine tuberculosis, a TB-like illness that endangers cattle herds.39 Today, bovine TB control is focused on vaccinating badgers with BCG via an intramuscular formulary (BadgerBCG),40 as the culprit is a pathogenic strain of M. bovis.39 As this effort is costly, dangerous, and not sustainable,41 considerable effort has gone into formulating a sustainable oral form of the BCG vaccine40 . BCG vaccine in the oral form is formulated with badger bait and left in the wild, with the idea that eventually, a large enough population will be inoculated to maintain herd immunity.39 Notably, initiatives to mass inoculate wild badger populations have run into a myriad of problems, chief among them producing enough of the vaccine to be viable in an oral formulary.41 While some of this quantity issue has been resolved with a new method of culturing the vaccine stain in bioreactors,41 the more pressing problem arises in the fact that the oral form of BCG is most effective when taken up in the oral mucosa compared to the ileal mucosa.41 From these animal studies, a viable human oral BCG vaccine could be created using a bioreactor to create enough viable colonies to survive a pill mold, then instructing recipients to allow the tablet to dissolve in their mouths to allow for oral mucosa uptake of the vaccine. However, such a method has yet to be tested, and more studies need to be done on both the production and administration side before moving forward. Fortunately, other routes of administration are currently being explored today with considerably more success.

An aerosolized formulation of the BCG vaccine is also being studied for as an improved delivery mechanism. Murine experiments have shown that aerosolized BCG elicits a stronger CD4 and CD8 T cell response to M. tb infection following vaccination, especially in lung vasculature.37,42 Mice were then challenged with M. bovis, and 8 weeks later were sacrificed, after which the amount of bacterial infection in various organs were quantified.42 Notably, the M. bovis burden in the lungs was significantly reduced in mice who had received the aerosolized vaccine, while there was no reduction in bacterial burden in those that received the ID formulation.42 Unfortunately, histological analysis of the lungs showed a stronger granulomatous inflammation reaction in mice who received BCG via aerosol versus the traditional route, suggesting there may have been more damage incurred in the lungs when BCG is aerosolized.42 This result, if found to be true in subsequent experiments, would warrant further research into the safety of an aerosolized BCG vaccine.

Of all the available routes of administration, the intravenous (IV) route has elicited the strongest immune response.43 When BCG was given IV compared to oral or ID administration into Macaques Monkeys, the IV formulation promoted a five-fold increase in total cells, especially T cells, in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples.43 IV administration also elicited a 100-fold increase from the ID response in cytokine concentrations classically associated with TB infection (IFNγ, IL-2, TNF, and IL-17), and these levels remained elevated for longer than compared to ID administration.43 Titer levels of M. tb specific IgG, IgA, and IgM also peaked higher and longer following IV administration compared to ID, suggesting that the immune response elicited may be more effective in combating TB.43 While IV administration of BCG may seem attractive, its efficacy is limited to infrastructure issues, as it requires even more medical knowledge and healthcare professional experience than ID or oral administration. IV bags are more cumbersome to store and ship, and patients may be turned off by the idea of receiving a drip. Larger needles also mean higher risk of complications, so further work must be done to quantify how much more efficacious IV administration is over the current ID formulary before placing the necessary investments into IV vaccinations.

Finally, an even more novel approach to vaccine administration was tested in 2017, when the non-reconstituted vaccine was directly loaded into the hollow tips of a dissolvable microneedle array (MNA).44 Tested on mice, the MNA was first pressed through the epidermis, where the sharp tips of the MNAs dissolved to release the vaccine into the epidermis and dermis.44 Initial results showed limited site infection and evidence of cytokine production and T cell activation resembling post-BCG inoculation. This method has multiple advantages over the current route of administration. It does not require reconstitution, decreasing error, and need for skilled practitioners. It can be stored like dry powder, increasing shelf life .44 More studies need to be done to test vaccine efficacy and affordability, but the technique is certainly promising.

The future of tuberculosis vaccination – development of a novel vaccine

Given the wide range of reported efficacy of the BCG vaccine, considerable research has also gone into developing the next generation of TB preventative vaccinations. Going beyond BCG reformulation, there appear to be three different approaches to vaccine development: development of an entirely new TB vaccine, creation of a novel recombinant vaccine derived from the existing BCG vaccine, and development of a booster vaccination to reinforce an existing BCG vaccination. The three approaches will now be discussed. A summary of the next generation vaccine candidates is listed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of current anti-TB vaccine candidates according to tuberculosis vaccine initiative

Vaccine Components Development Status Studies
Novel anti-TB vaccine      
Mycobacterium incidus
pranii (MIP)
A nonpathogenic atypical mycobacterium Phase III
  • Safe and induced prominent Th1 responses with heat-killed MIP in mice and guinea pigs45

  • Enhanced bacterial clearance and improved lung pathology in guinea pig model46 and advanced pulmonary TB patients46

Mycobacterium vaccae (M. vaccae) Heat-killed M. vaccae, a nonpathogenic mycobacterial species Phase III
  • Effectively control M. tb infection in animal models47,48

  • Failed to provide protective benefits as a single-dose regimen in human trials49,50

  • Well-tolerated and immunogenic in three-dose and five-dose regimen in healthy51 and HIV-infected human52,53

RhMCV/TB Recombinant rhesus macaques Cytomegalovirus vectors expressing M. tb antigens Preclinical
  • Effective in TB prevention in rhesus macaque model54

ChadOx1/PPE15 Recombinant chimpanzee Adenoviral vector expressing M. tb antigens Preclinical
  • Intranasal administration induced differentiation of lung parenchymal naïve CD4+ and CD8 + T cells to protective phenotype CXCR3+ KLRG1- in mice55

AEC/BC02 Fusion of Ag85B and ESAT-6/CFP-10 antigens in CpG/aluminum salt-based adjuvant Phase I
  • Reduced bacterial load in guinea pig model56

  • Dose-dependent potency in stimulation of IFN-y response and effective in latent or active disease57

H1:IC31 Fusion of ESAT6 and Ag85B antigens in IC31 adjuvant system Phase I
  • Safe and immunogenic in murine models58

  • Safe in human adults59,60 and HIV-infected individuals61

  • Two low-dose regimens optimally induced polyfunctional CD4 + T cells in healthy adolescents62

M72/AS01E Fusion of M. tb32A and M. tb39A antigens in AS01 adjuvant system Phase II
  • Safe and immunogenic in BCG-vaccinated infants,63 healthy HIV-infected64 and M. tb-infected adults65

  • Render 54% protection against reactivation in TB-latent adults66

RUTI Polyantigenic liposomal expressing mycobacterial latent antigens Phase II
  • Reduce bacterial burden and macrophage infiltration in granulomas, promote strong IFN-y secretion in Th1 immune responses in murine models, and produce a balanced Th1/Th2 response in addition to M. tb antigen-specific IgG antibodies67–70

  • Safe and immunogenic in healthy adults71

  • Safe and immunogenic with a low dose vaccine in latent TB adults72

Recombinant BCG strain      
BCG-Zmp1 Deletion of zmp1 gene in M. bovis BCG strain Preclinical
  • More intense immune responses against M. tb compared to wild-type BCG in mice73

  • Safe and immunogenic in guinea pig model74

SapM:TnBCG Deletion of SapM gene from parental M. bovis BCG strain Preclinical
  • Robust Th1 immune response, decline in bacterial load, and improve long-term survival compared to parental BCG in mice75

CysVac2 Recombinant BCG expressing Ag85B-CysD fusion protein Preclinical
  • Steady reduction in bacterial load in heterologous prime-boost with BCG-CysVac276

  • Robust immunity prior to and after M. Tb exposure with induction of polyfunctional CD4 + T cells77

  • Profound Th1 response when CysVac2 formulated with Advax adjuvant78

VPM1002 Recombinant BCG replacing urease C gene with listeriolysin O Phase III
  • Acceptable safety profile in animal models and SCID mice79,80

  • Highly efficacious induction of Th1 responses and bacterial burden reduction compared to BCG-control80–83

  • Safe and efficacious in prevention of TB in newborns84

BCG Booster Vaccines      
BCG revaccination Wild-type M. bovis BCG strain Phase II
  • Increase magnitude of a robust CD4 + T cells response with no significant affect to the response rate of CD4 + T cells in homologous BCG prime-boost regimen85

  • Confer 45.4% efficacy against M. tb infection in BCG-primed group86

  • No additional benefits upon homologous BCG prime boost in two large-scale randomized trials87,88

Ad5Ag85A Adenovirus type 5 expressing Ag85A antigen Phase I
  • Superior efficacy of heterologous BCG-prime Ad5Ag85A-boost regimen among mice,89 cattle,89 and goat90

  • Greater degree of protection against TB seen in bovine model91

  • Administered intranasally, elicited significant T cells responses in the lung with better protection following pulmonary challenge92

Ad5-CEAB Adenovirus type 5 expressing CFP10, ESAT6, Ag85A, and Ag85B antigen in a mixture rather a fusion protein Unknown
  • Antigen-specific T cell responses were significantly amplified in heterologous prime-boost regimen93

Ad35-TBS (AERAS-402) Adenovirus type 35 expressing Ag85A, Ag85B, and TB10.4 antigens Unknown
  • Strong CD8+ and CD4 + T-cell response in a dose-dependent manner in murine model94

  • Heterologous prime-boost regimen greatly induces multifunctional CD4+ and CD8 + T cells95

GaM. tbVac Fusion of Ag85A and ESAt6-CFp10 with dextran-binding domain fixated on dextran and mixed with a dextran core/CpG ODN adjuvant system Phase I
  • Heterologous prime-boost regimen considerably enhanced antigen-specific responses and reduced bacterial burden compared to BCG alone and homologous GaM. tbVac-GaM. tbvac regimen96

  • Safe and efficacious as a heterologous prime-boost regimen in human adults97

H4:IC31 (AERAS-404) Fusion of TB10.4 and Ag85B in IC31 adjuvant system Unknown
  • Safe and protective against M. tb challenge in murine model98

  • Safe and optimal responses at low dose in human model99,100

H56:IC31 Fusion of Ag85B, ESAT-6, and Rv2660c in IC31 adjuvant system Phase II
  • Safe and effectively reduce bacterial burden in BCG-primed mice101 and nonhuman primates102,103

  • Induce polyfunctional CD4 + T cell responses at low dose104

  • Induce robust immune responses with three doses of H56:IC31 in QFT-negative individuals whereas no additional benefits were seen from the third dose in QFT-positive individuals105

ID93/GLA-SE Fusion of Rv1813, Rv2608, Rv3619, and Rv3620, combined with glucopyranosyl lipid adjuvant in oil-in-water stable emulsion Phase I
  • Heterologous BCG-prime ID93/GLA-SE-boost regimen enhanced survival in guinea pig model106,107 and against a virulent MTb strain in the mouse model108

  • Induced polyfunctional CD4 + T cells double expressing either cytokines CD154+ IFN-y+ or CD154+ TNF-a+ in mice109 and TB naïve human110

  • Tuberculin Skin Test is not compromised in ID93/GLA-SE vaccinated animals111

DAR-901 Inactivated M. tb SRL172 strain Phase II
  • Safe and immunogenic with superior protection compared to BCG alone in BCG-DAR-901-vaccinated mice112 and human adults113,114

MTBVAC Live-attenuated M. tb with deletion of virulence factors, fadD26 and phoP Phase II
  • Safe in SCID mice and guinea pigs115

  • No effect on growth and development in newborn mice116

  • Similar safety profile to BCG in adults and infants117

  • Reduce bacterial burden and enhance survival in mice,118 goats,119 and nonhuman primate120

  • Greater multifunctional CD4 + T cell responses with acceptable safety profile in humans121

  • BCG-prime M. TBVAC-boost regimen confers greater protection in guinea pigs compared to BCG alone122

  • Intranasal administration of heat-killed M. TBVAC induce profound humoral and cellular responses systemically and locally in BCG-prime animals123

Method 1 – development of a new TB vaccine

The first approach involves the advent of a novel vaccine via the exploitation of various mycobacterial species, viral vectors, or the construction of fusion proteins (Table 1).

A novel TB vaccine based on a different mycobacterial species

Mycobacterium indicus pranii (M. pranii)124 is a nonpathogenic atypical mycobacterium historically exploited for its efficacy against leprotic infections.125 However, it shares highly antigenic forms of the Proline-Glutamate/Proline-Proline-Glutamate (PE/PPE) family of proteins with M. tb, thus suggesting efficacy in granting immunity against M. tb.126 Animal models have demonstrated the safety and preventative effects of heat-killed M. pranii.45,127 In fact, dynamic Th1 responses with greater secretion of IL-12 and IFN-y cytokines in concomitance with the influx of CD4+ and CD8 + T cells in the lungs were observed in animals subcutaneously injected with heat-killed M. pranii.45,127 Furthermore, the apoptotic process and autophagy of infected macrophages was significantly accelerated; thereby, facilitating antigen presentation in the M. pranii -vaccinated group .128 As a result, the M. pranii -vaccinated group portrayed markedly reduced lung pathology and bacterial burden as well as enhanced survivability.45 Interestingly, M. pranii can be administered via the mucosal route, inducing more powerful Th1 immune responses, increased localization of CD4+ and CD8 + T cells in the lungs, activation and maturation of dendritic cells (DCs), and enhancing migration of bone marrow-derived dendritic cells (BMDCs) via upregulation of CCR7.45,129,130 Further studies were conducted to explore M. pranii’s immunotherapeutic role, suggesting enhanced bacterial clearance and improved lung pathology among guinea pig models131. Finally, Sharman et al demonstrated the efficacy of intra-dermal injections of M. pranii in conversion of sputum culture in patients with advanced pulmonary TB.46

Another mycobacterium species that has been exploited for therapeutic purposes is Mycobacterium vaccae (M. vaccae).47,132 In numerous studies, M. vaccae has consistently demonstrated its efficacy against M. tb, possibly by inducing a Th1-biased response while suppressing Th2.47,48 In subsequent human trials, M. vaccae failed to provide protective benefits as a single dose regimen, 49,50 but three and five-dose regimens of M. vaccae were well-tolerated with minimal adverse reactions and conferred protection against M. tb among healthy51 and HIV-infected subjects.52,53 Notably, PPD skin test conversion and alteration of HIV viral load were not observed in either regimen.51–53 M. vaccae vaccines are available in either injectable or oral form (Table 1). The injectable form was investigated as a single therapeutic vaccine agent with protective capacity against pulmonary TB in mice.133 Nevertheless, it is frequently used in conjunction with immunotherapy in human trials, substantially enhancing TB immunotherapy with 68% clearance of sputum smear compared to 23.1% in placebo.134 Therefore, M. vaccae is an anti-TB vaccine currently in phase III of clinical trials which has produced phenomenal results.

A novel TB vaccine based on insertion of an antigenic protein into a viral vector

Besides attenuating similar pathogens to elicit an immune response, considerable effort has been made to utilize a viral vector in a new vaccine. The rhesus macaque Cytomegalovirus/TB vaccine (RhMCV/Tb) contains vectors that express nine different M. tb proteins54 (Table 1). Among the nine proteins, antigen-85A (Ag85A) was the most immunogenic, capable of eliciting and maintaining high-frequency T cell responses, especially the effector memory phenotype CD8+ and CD4 + T cells.54 Furthermore, the Ag85A-specific T cell response produced both TNF-α and IFN- γ cytokines, which led to a more robust and longer-lasting immune response compared to one generated by the traditional BCG vaccine.54 The overall disease and bacterial burden were also significantly lower in the RhCMV/TB-vaccinated group when compared to the BCG-vaccinated and control group .54 Intriguingly, the objective data also suggest that BCG-induced inflammation suppressed several protective genes, namely MMP8, CTSG, and CD52, and offset the protective innate immune responses induced by RhCMV/TB alone, thereby curtailing the immune response in RhCMV/TB regimen preceded by BCG vaccination .54 Therefore, RhCMV/TB vaccination alone suffices in mounting a robust immune response and conferring immunity against M. tb.

Like the RhCMV/TB vaccine, ChadOx1/PPE15 is a vaccine comprised a chimpanzee adenovirus expressing a mycobacterial antigen-encoding vector.55,135,136 Among the expressing antigens, PPE15 was most immunogenic, thus, its presence on ChadOx1 affords significant protective immunity which manifests in reduced M. tb bacterial load.55 However, immunity granted by the ChadOx1/PPE15 vaccine depends on the administration route. Intranasal administration elicited differentiation of lung parenchymal naive CD4+ and CD8 + T cells into the protective CXCR3+ KLRG1- phenotype, while intramuscular administration induced the CX3CR1+ KLRG1+ phenotype, which is predominantly found in blood vessels and incapable of migrating to infected lung tissue.55 Notably, administration of the ChadOx1/PPE15 vaccine to mice already primed with BCG vaccine elicited a greater immune response than in mice given only BCG, as measured by a larger concentration of CD4+ cells post vaccination.55 Conversely, a prominent CD8 + T cell response was observed in ChadOx1/PPE15-vaccinated mice without prior BCG vaccination.55 Nevertheless, both vaccination regimens were able to provide superior protection compared to their respective control group.

Finally, subunit vaccines represent the third class of vaccines that might supplement BCG vaccination (Table 1). This vaccination class isolates immunogenic antigens from bacteria, viruses, or fungi then fuses them to a nonimmunogenic adjuvant. In TB research, the most promising subunit vaccines include AEC/BC02, H1/IC31, M72/AS01E, and RUTI.

A novel TB vaccine based on construction of a fusion protein

A novel vaccine constructed via the fusion of M. tb-specific antigens Ag85B and ESAT-6/CFP-10 (AEC), and adjuvanted by BCG CpG and aluminum salt (BC02), the AEC/BC02 vaccine was first introduced and proven effective in reducing the bacterial load in guinea pigs by Chen et al..56,57 Additionally, Lu et al. uncovered the dose-dependent relationship between AEC/BC02 vaccination and the induction of a highly antigen-specific IFN-y response.57 Interestingly, the AEC/BC02 vaccine was inferior to the BCG vaccine in terms of prevention; however, it substantially reduced bacterial burden and gross pathology in latent infection57 .

Another notable subunit vaccine is H1/IC31, comprised of fusion proteins ESAT6 and Ag85B, formulated in the IC31 adjuvant system which is composed of a leucine-rich peptide and oligodeoxynucleotide known as ODN1a (Table 1).58 Studies revealed a two-dose regimen of H1/IC31 vaccine was safe in human adults irrespective of their BCG status, prior M. tb infection,59,60 or HIV status.61 These findings are in concordance with the data from a recent phase II trial, in which a two-dose regimen of 15 µg H1-IC31 vaccine optimally evoked vaccine-specific durable polyfunctional CD4 + T cells in healthy M. tb-infected and M. tb-uninfected adolescents.62

Similarly, M72/AS01E is a subunit vaccine comprised a fusion of mycobacterial antigens M. tb32A and M. tb39A, formulated with the AS01 adjuvant system (Table 1).137 Many studies described the clinical safety profile of the vaccine and its long-lasting polyfunctional CD4 + T cells expressing IFN- γ, IL-2, and TNF-α among BCG-vaccinated infants,63 as well as healthy HIV-infected64 and M. tb-infected adults.65 M72/AS01E has been shown to render 54% protection against disease activation in M. tb-infected adults.66 Furthermore, Kumarasamy et al. observed a greater vaccine-induced seroconversion rate with a steep increase of seroconversion upon administration of a second dose, thereby permitting optimal resistance against M. tb.138

In contrast with the aforementioned subunit vaccines, which are preventative vaccines, RUTI has been studied for its therapeutic efficacy against TB. RUTI is a poly-antigenic liposomal vaccine comprised antigens corresponding to latency, expressed by M. tb under stressful conditions.139 RUTI has been shown to reduce bacterial burden and macrophage infiltration in granulomas, promote strong IFN-y secretion during Th1 immune responses in murine models, and produce a balanced Th1/Th2 response in addition to M. tb antigen-specific IgG antibodies.67–70 These preclinical trials suggest that RUTI can successfully induce a well-balanced immune response via promotion of protective cellular immune responses and prevention of excessive inflammation. In human trials, a double-blind, randomized, controlled phase I study has concluded the tolerability and immunogenicity of RUTI in healthy adults.71 Similarly, a randomized, double-blind, phase II trial demonstrated the safety profile and conferred immunity among adults with latent TB treated with a 1-month isoniazid regimen.72 Additionally, RUTI vaccine did not impair CD4+ counts and HIV viral loads, thus, the course of HIV progression in HIV-positive subjects remained unaltered.72

Method 2 – development of a novel recombinant vaccine derived from an existing BCG strain

Growing evidence supports the efficacy of genetically modified parental BCG strains known as recombinant BCG vaccines. Currently, there are four recombinant BCG vaccines under investigation to replace the parental BCG strain (Table 1).

The first of these vaccines is BCG-Zmp1, a vaccine still in its preclinical phase.73 The BCG-Zmp1 vaccine is an attenuated M. bovis BCG vaccine with a knock-out mutation of the zmp1 gene, which encodes for the zinc metalloprotease Zmp1.73 Johansen et al. discovered that mice immunized with zmp1-deficient BCG strain could mount an intense immune response through the proliferation of antigen-specific T-cells and increased secretion of cytokines, particularly IFN- γ, when compared to mice vaccinated with wild-type BCG.73 It is worth mentioning that enhancement in the BCG-Zmp1 vaccine’s immunogenicity did not come at the expense of diminished persistency or heightened pathology of M. bovis.73 Likewise, a study conducted on guinea pig models ascertained the vaccine’s safety and efficacy compared to BCG-vaccinated and non-vaccinated control groups, as measured via bacterial load in the lungs and spleen.74 Moreover, survival time was substantially extended among immunocompromised mice vaccinated with BCG-Zmp1 than with BCG alone.74 Therefore, the BCG-Zmp1 vaccine confers superior protection against M. tb due to its high immunogenicity and improved safety profile when compared to traditional BCG vaccination in murine models.

The second vaccine candidate in preclinical trials is SapM:TnBCG, which contains a SapM gene deletion from the parental M. bovis BCG strain (Table 1).140 SapM gene encodes secreted acid phosphatase, which primarily interrupts host macrophage maturation and lysosome-phagosome fusion, thus playing a critical role in M. tb’s pathogenesis.75 Compared to parental BCG, mice vaccinated with SapM:TnBCG exhibit a more robust Th1 immune response with a decline in bacterial load and increase in long-term survival.75 Interestingly, while autophagy, maturation, and lysosome-phagosome fusion were not significantly varied between the two strains, a greater degree of DC migration and activation in the lymph nodes was observed among SapM:TnBCG-vaccinated mice.75

The third preclinical vaccine candidate is CysVac2, a recombinant BCG vaccine expressing a fusion protein containing the antigen Ag85B and CysD, a protein expressed during persistent infection with M. tb (Table 1).76 CysVac2 vaccination in mice elicited a significant influx of innate immune cells, particularly neutrophils, macrophages, and DCs, at the injection site. Ag85B-specific CD4 + T cell numbers were increased in the draining lymph node and the spleen.77 Furthermore, a greater number of IFN- γ secreting cells were seen in CysVac2 vaccinated mice when compared to BCG-vaccinated and unvaccinated control groups. Thus, CysVac2 vaccine conferred greater resistance against M. tb infection while significantly reducing pulmonary bacterial load.77 Boosting previously BCG-vaccinated mice with CysVac2 revealed a steady reduction in bacterial load compared to both the unvaccinated group and BCG-group boosted only with an adjuvant.77 This phenomenon is thought to be the result of increased CysD-specific CD4 + T cell numbers, which secrete IFN-y and TN-α in response to the expression of CysD during late-stage infection. The CysVac2-prime and boost regimen confer sustainable protective immunity both prior to and after M. tb exposure.77

Lastly, VPM1002 is a recombinant BCG vaccine in which the listeriolysin O encoding gene (hly) of Listeria monocytogenes replaces the urease C gene in BCG (Table 1).141 Hly gene expression in BCG facilitates cytosolic release of antigens and mycobacterial DNA along with consequent activation of autophagy, antigen presentation, immune system activation, and apoptosis.142 The safety profile of VPM1002 was comparable to BCG in animal models including both SCID and healthy mice, guinea pigs, and newborn rabbits.79 In fact, the VPM1002 strain is less virulent and never disseminates into the lungs in VPM1002-vaccinated mice.81 Moreover, VPM1002 vaccination conferred remarkable protective efficacy with significant Th1 response and bacterial load reduction compared to the BCG control group.80–83 In a phase I trial, both single-dose and three-dose regimens of VPM1002 were well-tolerated, stimulating marked quantities of polyfunctional T cells co-expressing TNF-α, IFN- γ, and IL-2 against M. tb.141 Similarly, a phase II trial concluded the comparable safety and efficacy of VPM1002 to BCG in newborns.84 Since VPM1002 is also effective in clearing M. tb among M. tb-exposed mice,83 a phase III trial of post-exposure vaccination with VPM1002 is currently underway in India.

Method 3 – development of a BCG vaccine augmenting booster vaccine

The concept of BCG revaccination as a booster in BCG-primed populations has been investigated over the past decades with conflicting results. One study demonstrated that BCG revaccination increased the magnitude of the immune response with robust multifunctional BCG-specific CD4 + T cells; however, this did not alter the response rate of CD4 + T cells .85 Likewise, Nemes et al. concluded that BCG revaccination confers 45.4% efficacy against M. tb infection.86 Conversely, two large-scale randomized trials revealed no additional benefits of BCG revaccination against TB.87,88 These incongruent findings may be due to the geographical variation and mutation of BCG strains, leading to differential responses and efficacies. Nonetheless, priming with BCG produced mild to moderate injection site reactions which were temporary and resolved without any sequelae among adolescents with initial BCG-administration at birth.85,86 More recent attempts to boost initial vaccination have led to the development of novel booster vaccines derived from either a viral vector, fusion protein, or new bacterial species (Table 1).

Adenovirus type 5 (Ad5), owing to its inherent property of evoking a dynamic immune response, has been used as a vector to express mycobacterial antigen Ag85A in efforts to control M. tb infection. Compelling evidence has demonstrated superior effectiveness of the BCG-prime Ad5Ag85A-boost regimen against TB in mice,89 cattle,89 and goat compared to BCG alone.90 Of note, animals who received the heterologous prime-boost regimen consistently showed attenuated bacterial burden as well as attenuated lung and lymph node lesions.89,90,143 Furthermore, the frequency of Ag85A-specific CD4 + T cells was significantly increased, hence conferring a greater degree of protection against TB in the bovine model.91 Interestingly, immune responses resulting from Ad5Ag85A vaccination are administration route-dependent (Table 1). In the murine model, the intramuscular route induced robust Ag85A-specific T-cell responses in the spleen and lung interstitial with little to no protection against pulmonary M. tb.92 Conversely, the intranasal route elicited more significant T cell responses in the lungs, thereby promoting better protection following pulmonary challenge92

Ad5-CEAB is another recombinant adenovirus vector expressing M. tb antigens (Table 1). In the BCG-prime Ad5-CEAB-boost regimen, the antigen-specific T cell responses in mice were significantly potentiated with an elevation of the anti-mycobacterial cytokines IFN-γ, TNF-α, and IL-2 when compared to BCG alone.93 Hence, it may be promising in providing resistance against M. tb in BCG-vaccinated group.

Like the aforementioned vaccine, the Ad35-TBS vaccine (AERAS-402), which is a recombinant adenovirus 35 vector expressing a different set of M. tb antigens, elicited strong CD8+ and CD4 + T-cell responses in a dose-dependent manner among murine models.94 Furthermore, intramuscular Ad35-TBS produced more efficient and robust T-cell responses than intranasal immunization (Table 1).95 Nonetheless, both vaccination routes led to improvements in lung histology when compared to non-vaccinated mice.95 Furthermore, Abel et al. revealed the promising results of AERAS-402 vaccination in QuantiFERON Gold (QFT) negative adults through induction of multifunctional CD4+ and CD8 + T cells.144 Following BCG priming, the AERAS-402 vaccine greatly increased the number of multifunctional CD4 + T cells producing IFN- γ, TNF-α, and IL-2 along with the number of multifunctional CD8 + T cells producing IFN- γ, perforin, and CD107a.95 Collectively, the immune profile generated by heterologous BCG-prime AREAS-402-boosting confers optimal immunity against TB in human adults when compared to AREAS-402 vaccinated adults alone.95

GaMtbvac is a sophisticated vaccine comprised Ag85A and ESAT6-CFP10 fused with a dextran-binding domain fixated on dextran along with an adjuvant system containing a DEAE-dextran core and the TLR9 agonist, CpG oligodeoxynucleotides (Table 1).96 GaMtbvac portrays powerful immunogenicity and can generate high antigen-specific antibody titers and IFN- γ. GaMtbvac -vaccinated mice were found to effectively control the disease with significantly lower bacterial loads in the lungs and spleen compared to non-vaccinated mice.96 Furthermore, prime-boost regimens in the murine model were also investigated for their efficacy against TB. A homologous prime-boost regimen using GaMtbvac inadequately reduced bacterial burden in the lungs and spleen compared to BCG vaccination alone.96 Conversely, heterologous BCG-prime GaMtbvac -boost, considerably enhanced antigen-specific responses while reducing bacterial burden when compared to homologous vaccination with GaMtbvac and BCG alone.96 The safety and effectiveness of heterologous regimens were further assessed in BCG-vaccinated human adults.97 Adverse effects associated with GaMtbvac were considered mild and transient, resolving spontaneously. GaMtbvac vaccine-induced Ag85A-specific T-cell responses resulted in the secretion of IL-2 and TNF-α soon after injection, whereas ESAT6-CFP10-specific T-cell responses occurred during later stages with hallmark TNF-α, IL-10, IL-17, and IL-9 elevation among BCG-vaccinated adults.97 Of note, GaMtbvac also stimulates pronounced secretion of vaccine-specific IgG; its role against M. tb, however, is yet to be elucidated.97

H4:IC31, also known as AERAS-404, is comprised of a TB10.4 and Ag85B fusion protein adjuvanted in a mixture of the leucin-rich peptide and oligodeoxynucleotide, ODN1a (Table 1).98 HC:IC31 was proven safe and adequately protective against M. tb challenges with a significant reduction in bacterial burden among murine models.98 Protection resulted from antigen-specific polyfunctional CD4 + T cells co-expressing IFN- γ, TNF-α, and IL-2.98 Furthermore, H4:IC31 showed an acceptable safety profile in human adults with prior BCG vaccination.145 Interestingly, the H4:IC31 vaccine induced the highest antigen-specific T cell response among the low-dose group when compared to the placebo and high-dose groups in mouse145 and human models.99 Thus, H4:IC31 shows promise as a BCG booster with superior efficacy at a low dose.99,100

H56:IC31 is a novel subunit vaccine composed of a Ag85B, ESAT-6, and Rv2660c fusion protein in an IC31 adjuvant system (Table 1).101 Many studies reveal the immunogenicity and efficacy of this vaccine in reducing bacterial burden and lung pathology among BCG pre-vaccinated mice101 and nonhuman primates.102,103 H56:IC31 has an acceptable safety profile and shows favorable differentiation of antigen-specific polyfunctional CD4 + T cells expressing IFN- γ, TNF-α, and IL-2.104 Furthermore, H56:IC31 yielded greatest results at lower doses in BCG-vaccinated human adults.104 Vaccination with H56:IC31 at low doses (either 5 µg:500 nmol or 15 µg:500 nmol), induced high frequency and durable antigen-specific polyfunctional CD4 + T cell responses, irrespective of infection status. Furthermore, the number of vaccinations was dependent on the patient’s QFT status. In QFT negative individuals, three doses of H56:IC31 conferred robust and durable polyfunctional CD4 + T cell, whereas no additional benefits were seen from the third immunization in QFT positive individuals.105

ID93/GLA-SE is a subunit vaccine comprised a fusion of four mycobacterial antigens combined with glucopyranosyl lipid adjuvant, a TLR4 agonist, and emulsified in an oil-and-water solution (Table 1).106 Previous studies had demonstrated the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in mice,107,109 and nonhuman primates.106 Many studies describe the ability of ID93/GLA-SE to induce differentiation of CD4 + T cells into polyfunctional CD4 + T cells double expressing either CD154+ IFN- γ+ or CD154+ TNF-α+ cytokines in mice109 and in TB naïve humans.110 Therefore, ID93/GLA-SE alone can significantly reduce bacterial burden and increase survivability in mice109 as well as significantly increase antibody responses which mediate NK cell degranulation/activation and THP1 monocyte mediated antibody-dependent phagocytosis in humans.110 Furthermore, ID93/GLA-SE, when administered after BCG-priming, can enhance survival against TB in the guinea pig model106,107 and against M. tb K, a hyper-virulent strain, in the mouse model.108 Interestingly, the tuberculin skin test (TST), a delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) reaction in response to BCG vaccination and M. tb infection, had been uncompromised in ID93/GLA-SE-vaccinated animals. Therefore, in contrast to BCG vaccine, TST’s integrity in ID93/GLA-SE vaccinated specimens remained intact, thus preserving its utility in identifying potential exposure to M. tb.111

DAR-901 is an inactivated whole-cell mycobacterial vaccine manufactured from the SRL172 strain whose use as a booster is under investigation.112 DAR-901 is comparably safe and immunogenic, conferring superior protection against M. tb when compared to BCG alone in both murine models112 and human adults113,114 due to stimulation of IFN-y production (Table 1). Nonetheless, studies establishing the efficacy of the vaccine presented mixed results. DAR-901 induces a smaller magnitude polyfunctional CD4 + T cell response with no significant differences in T cell cytokine production when compared to the BCG booster vaccine. Furthermore, CD4 + T cells induced by the DAR-901 vaccine were short-lived and nonresponsive to mycobacterial antigens from M. tb lysate.114 Conversely, von Reyn et al. demonstrated that 1 mg of DAR-901 could induce both cellular and humoral responses, accompanied by substantial IFN-γ production in the presence of M. tb lysate among healthy adults with prior BCG vaccination.113 Furthermore, IFN-γ assay remained negative after 3 doses of DAR-901. Thus, the booster can be employed as a preventative vaccine without interrupting M. tb screening114 .

MTBVAC is a live-attenuated M. tb vaccine with genetic deletion of two major mycobacterial virulence factors:fadD26 and phoP.146 MTBVAC was deemed safe when tested in immunocompromised mice and guinea pigs.115 Congruently, Aguilo et al. observed that MTBVAC did not affect growth and development, thus suggesting its safety in newborn mice.116 Furthermore, M. TBVAC had a similar safety profile to BCG when administered subcutaneously in adults and in infants.117 Many studies among mice,118 goats,119 and nonhuman primates120 have investigated MTBVAC protectivity against M. tb as quantified by bacterial load, lung pathology, and survival rate. Overall, M. TBVAC confers superior protection in mouse models when compared to BCG vaccination.116,147 Furthermore, the first phase I trial in humans demonstrated excellent safety, similar immunogenicity, and a greater polyfunctional CD4 + T cell response when compared to BCG vaccination (Table 1).121 Clark et al. demonstrated greater protection against M. tb among BCG-primed MTBVAC-boosted guinea pigs when compared to those vaccinated with BCG alone.122 Surprisingly, heat-killed MTBVAC, when administered intranasally, could also induce profound humoral and cellular responses both systemically and locally in BCG-primed animals.123 Altogether, evidence suggests that MTBVAC confers greater immunity than BCG when administered alone and even more so in the BCG- MTBVAC prime-boost regimen.

Conclusion

BCG vaccination remains crucial during childhood in much of the world. While its efficacy has been historically challenged, newer research conducted with stronger parameters and controls have shed light into how vaccine strain variations may affect efficacy and the immune system upon administration. As the mechanism of action of the BCG vaccine continues to be discovered, more attention to the strain of BCG vaccine used, as well as the epigenetic changes it may elicit, might allow us to better time and control vaccination-induced immune responses. Subsequent efforts toward full eradication have led to creative ways of reconstituting an old vaccine into a newer, more efficacious form, and the development of the next generation of vaccines and adjuncts. promises to be a growing area of research that might lead to a more effective and consistent vaccine.

Funding Statement

We appreciate the funding support from National Institutes of Health (NIH) award [RHL143545-01A1].

References

  • 1.World Health, O., 2018. BCG vaccine: WHO position paper, February 2018 – Recommendations. Vaccine, 36(24), pp.3408–3410 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Tran, V., Liu, J. and Behr, M., 2014. BCG Vaccines. Microbiology Spectrum, 2(1), pp.mgm2-0028–2013 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 3.Bussi, C. and Gutierrez, M., 2019. Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection of host cells in space and time. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 43(4), pp.341–361 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lyon, S. and Rossman, M., 2017. Pulmonary Tuberculosis. Microbiology Spectrum, 5(1), pp.1–13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Horwitz, M., Harth, G., Dillon, B. and Masleša-Galić, S., 2009. Commonly administered BCG strains including an evolutionarily early strain and evolutionarily late strains of disparate genealogy induce comparable protective immunity against tuberculosis. Vaccine, 27(3), pp.441–445 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zwerling, A., Behr, M., Verma, A., Brewer, T., Menzies, D. and Pai, M., 2011. The BCG World Atlas: A Database of Global BCG Vaccination Policies and Practices. PLoS Medicine, 8(3), p.e1001012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 7.Eshete, A., Shewasinad, S. and Hailemeskel, S., 2020. Immunization coverage and its determinant factors among children aged 12–23 months in Ethiopia: a systematic review, and Meta- analysis of cross-sectional studies. BMC Pediatrics, 20(1), p.283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ritz, N., Hanekom, W., Robins-Browne, R., Britton, W. and Curtis, N., 2008. Influence of BCG vaccine strain on the immune response and protection against tuberculosis. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 32(5), pp.821–841 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Roy, A., Eisenhut, M., Harris, R., Rodrigues, L., Sridhar, S., Habermann, S., Snell, L., Mangtani, P., Adetifa, I., Lalvani, A. and Abubakar, I., 2014. Effect of BCG vaccination against Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in children: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 349, p.g4643. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 10.Ekanem, A., Oloyede, I., Ekrikpo, U., Idung, A. and Edward, E.. Rate of BCG Immunization in HIV-Exposed Infants in a Selected Primary Health Centre in Southern Nigeria: Implications of No Vaccine Policy for HIV-Positive Infants. J of Tropical Pediatrics. 2020. Jun 27 [accessed 2020. Dec 1]:[7 p.] doi: 10.1093/tropej/fmaa030 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 11.Kousha, A., Farajnia, S., Ansarin, K., Khalili, M., Shariat, M. and Sahebi, L., 2020. Does the BCG vaccine have different effects on strains of tuberculosis?. Clinical & Experimental Immunology, 203(2), pp.281–285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wu, B., Huang, C., Garcia, L., de Leon, A., Osornio, J., Bobadilla-del-Valle, M., Ferreira, L., Canizales, S., Small, P., Kato-Maeda, M., Krensky, A. and Clayberger, C., 2007. Unique Gene Expression Profiles in Infants Vaccinated with Different Strains of Mycobacterium bovis Bacille Calmette-Guérin. Infection and Immunity, 75(7), pp.3658–3664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kiravu, A., Osawe, S., Happel, A., Nundalall, T., Wendoh, J., Beer, S., Dontsa, N., Alinde, O., Mohammed, S., Datong, P., Cameron, D., Rosenthal, K., Abimiku, A., Jaspan, H. and Gray, C., 2019. Bacille Calmette-Guérin Vaccine Strain Modulates the Ontogeny of Both Mycobacterial-Specific and Heterologous T Cell Immunity to Vaccination in Infants. Frontiers in Immunology, 10, p.2307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Castillo-Rodal, A., Castañón-Arreola, M., Hernández-Pando, R., Calva, J., Sada-Díaz, E. and López-Vidal, Y., 2006. Mycobacterium bovis BCG Substrains Confer Different Levels of Protection against Mycobacterium tuberculosis Infection in a BALB/c Model of Progressive Pulmonary Tuberculosis. Infection and Immunity, 74(3), pp.1718–1724 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Davids, V., Hanekom, W., Mansoor, N., Gamieldien, H., Gelderbloem, S., Hawkridge, A., Hussey, G., Hughes, E., Soler, J., Murray, R., Ress, S. and Kaplan, G., 2006. The Effect of Bacille Calmette‐Guérin Vaccine Strain and Route of Administration on Induced Immune Responses in Vaccinated Infants. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 193(4), pp.531–536 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tanner, R., Villarreal-Ramos, B., Vordermeier, H. and McShane, H., 2019. The Humoral Immune Response to BCG Vaccination. Frontiers in Immunology, 10, p.1317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Netea, M., Quintin, J. and van der Meer, J., 2011. Trained Immunity: A Memory for Innate Host Defense. Cell Host & Microbe, 9(5), pp.355–361 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Garly, M., Martins, C., Balé, C., Baldé, M., Hedegaard, K., Gustafson, P., Lisse, I., Whittle, H. and Aaby, P., 2003. BCG scar and positive tuberculin reaction associated with reduced child mortality in West Africa. Vaccine, 21(21–22), pp. 2782–2790 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 19.Roth, A., Gustafson, P., Nhaga, A., Djana, Q., Poulsen, A., Garly, M., Jensen, H., Sodemann, M., Rodriques, A. and Aaby, P., 2005. BCG vaccination scar associated with better childhood survival in Guinea-Bissau. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34(3), pp.540–547 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Setia, M., Steinmaus, C., Ho, C. and Rutherford, G., 2006. The role of BCG in prevention of leprosy: a meta-analysis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 6(3), pp.162–170 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Stensballe, L., Nante, E., Jensen, I., Kofoed, P., Poulsen, A., Jensen, H., Newport, M., Marchant, A. and Aaby, P., 2005. Acute lower respiratory tract infections and respiratory syncytial virus in infants in Guinea-Bissau: a beneficial effect of BCG vaccination for girls. Vaccine, 23(10), pp.1251–1257 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Elliott, A., Nakiyingi, J., Quigley, M., French, N., Gilks, C. and Whitworth, J., 1999. Inverse association between BCG immunisation and intestinal nematode infestation among HIV-1-positive individuals in Uganda. The Lancet, 354(9183), pp.1000–1001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kleinnijenhuis, J., Quintin, J., Preijers, F., Benn, C., Joosten, L., Jacobs, C., van Loenhout, J., Xavier, R., Aaby, P., van der Meer, J., van Crevel, R. and Netea, M., 2013. Long-Lasting Effects of BCG Vaccination on Both Heterologous Th1/Th17 Responses and Innate Trained Immunity. Journal of Innate Immunity, 6(2), pp.152–158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Giamarellos-Bourboulis, E., Tsilika, M., Moorlag, S., Antonakos, N., Kotsaki, A., Domínguez-Andrés, J., Kyriazopoulou, E., Gkavogianni, T., Adami, M., Damoraki, G., Koufargyris, P., Karageorgos, A., Bolanou, A., Koenen, H., van Crevel, R., Droggiti, D., Renieris, G., Papadopoulos, A. and Netea, M., 2020. Activate: Randomized Clinical Trial of BCG Vaccination against Infection in the Elderly. Cell, 183(2), pp.315-323.e9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 25.Arts, R., Moorlag, S., Novakovic, B., Li, Y., Wang, S., Oosting, M., Kumar, V., Xavier, R., Wijmenga, C., Joosten, L., Reusken, C., Benn, C., Aaby, P., Koopmans, M., Stunnenberg, H., van Crevel, R. and Netea, M., 2018. BCG Vaccination Protects against Experimental Viral Infection in Humans through the Induction of Cytokines Associated with Trained Immunity. Cell Host & Microbe, 23(1), pp.89-100.e5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 26.Edupuganti, S., Eidex, R., Keyserling, H., Akondy, R., Lanciotti, R., Orenstein, W., Teuwen, D., Akondy, R., Orenstein, W., del Rio, C., Pan, Y., Querec, T., Lipman, H., Barrett, A., Ahmed, R., Teuwen, D., Cetron, M. and Mulligan, M., 2013. A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial of the 17D Yellow Fever Virus Vaccine Given in Combination with Immune Globulin or Placebo: Comparative Viremia and Immunogenicity. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 88(1), pp.172–177 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Portevin, D. and Young, D., 2013. Natural Killer Cell Cytokine Response to M. bovis BCG Is Associated with Inhibited Proliferation, Increased Apoptosis and Ultimate Depletion of NKp44+CD56bright Cells. PLoS ONE, 8(7), p.e68864. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 28.Wang, D., Gu, X., Liu, X., Wei, S., Wang, B. and Fang, M., 2018. NK cells inhibit anti-Mycobacterium bovis BCG T cell responses and aggravate pulmonary inflammation in a direct lung infection mouse model. Cellular Microbiology, 20(7), p.e12833. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 29.Kleinnijenhuis, J., Quintin, J., Preijers, F., Joosten, L., Jacobs, C., Xavier, R., van der Meer, J., van Crevel, R. and Netea, M., 2014. BCG-induced trained immunity in NK cells: Role for non-specific protection to infection. Clinical Immunology, 155(2), pp.213–219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Dhiman, R., Indramohan, M., Barnes, P., Nayak, R., Paidipally, P., Rao, L. and Vankayalapati, R., 2009. IL-22 Produced by Human NK Cells Inhibits Growth of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by Enhancing Phagolysosomal Fusion. The Journal of Immunology, 183(10), pp.6639–6645 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zheng, Y., Valdez, P., Danilenko, D., Hu, Y., Sa, S., Gong, Q., Abbas, A., Modrusan, Z., Ghilardi, N., de Sauvage, F. and Ouyang, W., 2008. Interleukin-22 mediates early host defense against attaching and effacing bacterial pathogens. Nature Medicine, 14(3), pp.282–289 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kleinnijenhuis, J., Quintin, J., Preijers, F., Joosten, L., Ifrim, D., Saeed, S., Jacobs, C., van Loenhout, J., de Jong, D., Stunnenberg, H., Xavier, R., van der Meer, J., van Crevel, R. and Netea, M., 2012. Bacille Calmette-Guerin induces NOD2-dependent nonspecific protection from reinfection via epigenetic reprogramming of monocytes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(43), pp.17537–17542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Umemura, M., Nishimura, H., Hirose, K., Matsuguchi, T. and Yoshikai, Y., 2001. Overexpression of IL-15 In Vivo Enhances Protection AgainstMycobacterium bovisBacillus Calmette-Guérin Infection Via Augmentation of NK and T Cytotoxic 1 Responses. The Journal of Immunology, 167(2), pp.946–956 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kaufmann, E., Sanz, J., Dunn, J., Khan, N., Mendonça, L., Pacis, A., Tzelepis, F., Pernet, E., Dumaine, A., Grenier, J., Mailhot-Léonard, F., Ahmed, E., Belle, J., Besla, R., Mazer, B., King, I., Nijnik, A., Robbins, C., Barreiro, L. and Divangahi, M., 2018. BCG Educates Hematopoietic Stem Cells to Generate Protective Innate Immunity against Tuberculosis. Cell, 172(1–2), pp.176- 190.e19 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cirovic, B., de Bree, L., Groh, L., Blok, B., Chan, J., van der Velden, W., Bremmers, M., van Crevel, R., Händler, K., Picelli, S., Schulte-Schrepping, J., Klee, K., Oosting, M., Koeken, V., van Ingen, J., Li, Y., Benn, C., Schultze, J., Joosten, L., Curtis, N., Netea, M. and Schlitzer, A., 2020. BCG Vaccination in Humans Elicits Trained Immunity via the Hematopoietic Progenitor Compartment. Cell Host & Microbe, 28(2), pp.322-334.e5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 36.Luca, S., Mihaescu, T., 2013. History of BCG Vaccine. Maedica, 8, pp.53–58 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Derrick, S., Kolibab, K., Yang, A. and Morris, S., 2014. Intranasal Administration of Mycobacterium bovis BCG Induces Superior Protection against Aerosol Infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Mice. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, 21(10), pp.1443–1451 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Saleem, I., Coombes, A. and Chambers, M., 2019. In Vitro Evaluation of Eudragit Matrices for Oral Delivery of BCG Vaccine to Animals. Pharmaceutics, 11(6), p.270. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Balseiro, A., Prieto, J., Álvarez, V., Lesellier, S., Davé, D., Salguero, F., Sevilla, I., Infantes-Lorenzo, J., Garrido, J., Adriaensen, H., Juste, R. and Barral, M., 2020. Protective Effect of Oral BCG and Inactivated Mycobacterium bovis Vaccines in European Badgers (Meles meles) Experimentally Infected With M. bovis. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, p.41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Palphramand, K., Delahay, R., Robertson, A., Gowtage, S., Williams, G., McDonald, R., Chambers, M. and Carter, S., 2017. Field evaluation of candidate baits for oral delivery of BCG vaccine to European badgers, Meles meles. Vaccine, 35(34), pp.4402–4407 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lesellier, S., Birch, C., Davé, D., Dalley, D., Gowtage, S., Palmer, S., McKenna, C., Williams, G., Ashford, R., Weyer, U., Beatham, S., Coats, J., Nunez, A., Sanchez-Cordon, P., Spiropoulos, J., Powell, S., Sawyer, J., Pascoe, J., Hendon-Dunn, C., Bacon, J. and Chambers, M., 2020. Bioreactor-Grown Bacillus of Calmette and Guérin (BCG) Vaccine Protects Badgers against Virulent Mycobacterium bovis When Administered Orally: Identifying Limitations in Baited Vaccine Delivery. Pharmaceutics, 12(8), p.782. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kaveh, D., Garcia-Pelayo, M., Bull, N., Sanchez-Cordon, P., Spiropoulos, J. and Hogarth, P., 2020. Airway delivery of both a BCG prime and adenoviral boost drives CD4 and CD8 T cells into the lung tissue parenchyma. Scientific Reports, 10(1), p.18703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Darrah, P., Zeppa, J., Maiello, P., Hackney, J., Wadsworth, M., Hughes, T., Pokkali, S., Swanson, P., Grant, N., Rodgers, M., Kamath, M., Causgrove, C., Laddy, D., Bonavia, A., Casimiro, D., Lin, P., Klein, E., White, A., Scanga, C., Shalek, A., Roederer, M., Flynn, J. and Seder, R., 2020. Prevention of tuberculosis in macaques after intravenous BCG immunization. Nature, 577(7788), pp.95–102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Chen, F., Yan, Q., Yu, Y. and Wu, M., 2017. BCG vaccine powder-laden and dissolvable microneedle arrays for lesion-free vaccination. Journal of Controlled Release, 255, pp.36–44 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gupta, A., Ahmad, F., Ahmad, F., Gupta, U., Natarajan, M., Katoch, V. and Bhaskar, S., 2012. Protective efficacy of Mycobacterium indicus pranii against tuberculosis and underlying local lung immune responses in guinea pig model. Vaccine, 30(43), pp.6198–6209 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Sharma, S., Katoch, K., Sarin, R., Balambal, R., Kumar Jain, N., Patel, N., Murthy, K., Singla, N., Saha, P., Khanna, A., Singh, U., Kumar, S., Sengupta, A., Banavaliker, J., Chauhan, D., Sachan, S., Wasim, M., Tripathi, S., Dutt, N., Jain, N., Joshi, N., Penmesta, S., Gaddam, S., Gupta, S., Khamar, B., Dey, B., Mitra, D., Arora, S., Bhaskar, S. and Rani, R., 2017. Efficacy and Safety of Mycobacterium indicus pranii as an adjunct therapy in Category II pulmonary tuberculosis in a randomized trial. Scientific Reports, 7(1), p.3354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hernandez-Pando, R., Pavön, L., Arriaga, K., Orozco, H., Madrid-Marina, V. and Rook, G., 1997. Pathogenesis of tuberculosis in mice exposed to low and high doses of an environmental mycobacterial saprophyte before infection. Infection and immunity, 65(8), pp.3317–3327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Abou-Zeid, C., Gares, M., Inwald, J., Janssen, R., Zhang, Y., Young, D., Hetzel, C., Lamb, J., Baldwin, S., Orme, I., Yeremeev, V., Nikonenko, B. and Apt, A., 1997. Induction of a type 1 immune response to a recombinant antigen from Mycobacterium tuberculosis expressed in Mycobacterium vaccae. Infection and immunity, 65(5), pp.1856–1862 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Immunotherapy with Mycobacterium vaccae in patients with newly diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis: a randomised controlled trial. Durban Immunotherapy Trial Group. Lancet. 1999;354(9173):116–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Mayo, R. and Stanford, J., 2000. Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of Mycobacterium vaccae immunotherapy for tuberculosis in KwaZulu, South Africa, 1991–1997. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 94(5), pp.563–568 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.von Reyn, C., Arbeit, R., Yeaman, G., Waddell, R., Marsh, B., Morin, P., Modlin, J. and Remold, H., 1997. Immunization of Healthy Adult Subjects in the United States with Inactivated Mycobacterium vaccae Administered in a Three-Dose Series. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 24(5), pp.843–848 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Marsh, B., Von Reyn, C., Arbeit, R. and Morin, P., 1997. Immunization of HIV-Infected Adults With a Three-Dose Series of Inactivated Mycobacterium vaccae. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 313(6), pp.377–383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.von Reyn, C., Marsh, B., Waddell, R., Lein, A., Tvaroha, S., Morin, P. and Modlin, J., 1998. Cellular Immune Responses to Mycobacteria in Healthy and Human Immunodeficiency Virus–Positive Subjects in the United States After a Five‐Dose Schedule ofMycobacterium vaccaeVaccine. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 27(6), pp.1517–1520 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hansen, S., Zak, D., Xu, G., Ford, J., Marshall, E., Malouli, D., Gilbride, R., Hughes, C., Ventura, A., Ainslie, E., Randall, K., Selseth, A., Rundstrom, P., Herlache, L., Lewis, M., Park, H., Planer, S., Turner, J., Fischer, M., Armstrong, C., Zweig, R., Valvo, J., Braun, J., Shankar, S., Lu, L., Sylwester, A., Legasse, A., Messerle, M., Jarvis, M., Amon, L., Aderem, A., Alter, G., Laddy, D., Stone, M., Bonavia, A., Evans, T., Axthelm, M., Früh, K., Edlefsen, P. and Picker, L., 2018. Prevention of tuberculosis in rhesus macaques by a cytomegalovirus-based vaccine. Nature Medicine, 24(2), pp.130–143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Stylianou, E., Harrington-Kandt, R., Beglov, J., Bull, N., Pinpathomrat, N., Swarbrick, G., Lewinsohn, D., Lewinsohn, D. and McShane, H., 2018. Identification and Evaluation of Novel Protective Antigens for the Development of a Candidate Tuberculosis Subunit Vaccine. Infection and Immunity, 86(7), pp.e00014–18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 56.Chen, L., Xu, M., Wang, Z., Chen, B., Du, W., Su, C., Shen, X., Zhao, A., Dong, N., Wang, Y. and Wang, G., 2010. The development and preliminary evaluation of a newMycobacterium tuberculosis vaccine comprising Ag85b, HspX and CFP-10:ESAT-6 fusion protein with CpG DNA and aluminum hydroxide adjuvants. FEMS Immunology & Medical Microbiology, 59(1), pp.42–52 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Lu, J., Chen, B., Wang, G., Fu, L., Shen, X., Su, C., Du, W., Yang, L. and Xu, M., 2015. Recombinant tuberculosis vaccine AEC/BC02 induces antigen-specific cellular responses in mice and protects guinea pigs in a model of latent infection. Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection, 48(6), pp.597–603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Agger, E., Rosenkrands, I., Olsen, A., Hatch, G., Williams, A., Kritsch, C., Lingnau, K., von Gabain, A., Andersen, C., Korsholm, K. and Andersen, P., 2006. Protective immunity to tuberculosis with Ag85B-ESAT-6 in a synthetic cationic adjuvant system IC31. Vaccine, 24(26), pp.5452–5460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.van Dissel, J., Arend, S., Prins, C., Bang, P., Tingskov, P., Lingnau, K., Nouta, J., Klein, M., Rosenkrands, I., Ottenhoff, T., Kromann, I., Doherty, T. and Andersen, P., 2010. Ag85B–ESAT-6 adjuvanted with IC31® promotes strong and long-lived Mycobacterium tuberculosis specific T cell responses in naïve human volunteers. Vaccine, 28(20), pp.3571–3581 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.van Dissel, J., Soonawala, D., Joosten, S., Prins, C., Arend, S., Bang, P., Tingskov, P., Lingnau, K., Nouta, J., Hoff, S., Rosenkrands, I., Kromann, I., Ottenhoff, T., Doherty, T. and Andersen, P., 2011. Ag85B–ESAT-6 adjuvanted with IC31® promotes strong and long-lived Mycobacterium tuberculosis specific T cell responses in volunteers with previous BCG vaccination or tuberculosis infection. Vaccine, 29(11), pp.2100–2109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Reither, K., Katsoulis, L., Beattie, T., Gardiner, N., Lenz, N., Said, K., Mfinanga, E., Pohl, C., Fielding, K., Jeffery, H., Kagina, B., Hughes, E., Scriba, T., Hanekom, W., Hoff, S., Bang, P., Kromann, I., Daubenberger, C., Andersen, P. and Churchyard, G., 2014. Safety and Immunogenicity of H1/IC31®, an Adjuvanted TB Subunit Vaccine, in HIV-Infected Adults with CD4+ Lymphocyte Counts Greater than 350 cells/mm3: A Phase II, Multi-Centre, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial. PLoS ONE, 9(12), p.e114602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 62.Mearns, H., Geldenhuys, H., Kagina, B., Musvosvi, M., Little, F., Ratangee, F., Mahomed, H., Hanekom, W., Hoff, S., Ruhwald, M., Kromann, I., Bang, P., Hatherill, M., Andersen, P., Scriba, T., Rozot, V., Abrahams, D., Mauff, K., Smit, E., Brown, Y., Hughes, E., Makgotlho, E., Keyser, A., Erasmus, M., Makhethe, L., Africa, H., Hopley, C. and Steyn, M., 2017. H1:IC31 vaccination is safe and induces long-lived TNF-α+IL-2+CD4 T cell responses in M. tuberculosis infected and uninfected adolescents: A randomized trial. Vaccine, 35(1), pp.132–141 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Idoko, O., Owolabi, O., Owiafe, P., Moris, P., Odutola, A., Bollaerts, A., Ogundare, E., Jongert, E., Demoitié, M., Ofori-Anyinam, O. and Ota, M., 2014. Safety and immunogenicity of the M72/AS01 candidate tuberculosis vaccine when given as a booster to BCG in Gambian infants: An open-label randomized controlled trial. Tuberculosis, 94(6), pp.564–578 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Kumarasamy, N., Poongulali, S., Bollaerts, A., Moris, P., Beulah, F., Ayuk, L., Demoitié, M., Jongert, E. and Ofori-Anyinam, O., 2016. A Randomized, Controlled Safety, and Immunogenicity Trial of the M72/AS01 Candidate Tuberculosis Vaccine in HIV-Positive Indian Adults. Medicine, 95(3), p.e2459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 65.Gillard, P., Yang, P., Danilovits, M., Su, W., Cheng, S., Pehme, L., Bollaerts, A., Jongert, E., Moris, P., Ofori-Anyinam, O., Demoitié, M. and Castro, M., 2016. Safety and immunogenicity of the M72/AS01 E candidate tuberculosis vaccine in adults with tuberculosis: A phase II randomised study. Tuberculosis, 100, pp.118–127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Van Der Meeren, O., Hatherill, M., Nduba, V., Wilkinson, R., Muyoyeta, M., Van Brakel, E., Ayles, H., Henostroza, G., Thienemann, F., Scriba, T., Diacon, A., Blatner, G., Demoitié, M., Tameris, M., Malahleha, M., Innes, J., Hellström, E., Martinson, N., Singh, T., Akite, E., Khatoon Azam, A., Bollaerts, A., Ginsberg, A., Evans, T., Gillard, P. and Tait, D., 2018. Phase 2b Controlled Trial of M72/AS01EVaccine to Prevent Tuberculosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 379(17), pp.1621–1634 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Guirado, E., Gil, O., Cáceres, N., Singh, M., Vilaplana, C. and Cardona, P., 2008. Induction of a Specific Strong Polyantigenic Cellular Immune Response after Short-Term Chemotherapy Controls Bacillary Reactivation in Murine and Guinea Pig Experimental Models of Tuberculosis. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, 15(8), pp.1229–1237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Vilaplana, C., Gil, O., Cáceres, N., Pinto, S., Díaz, J. and Cardona, P., 2011. Prophylactic Effect of a Therapeutic Vaccine against TB Based on Fragments of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. PLoS ONE, 6(5), p.e20404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 69.Prabowo, S., Painter, H., Zelmer, A., Smith, S., Seifert, K., Amat, M., Cardona, P. and Fletcher, H., 2019. RUTI Vaccination Enhances Inhibition of Mycobacterial Growth ex vivo and Induces a Shift of Monocyte Phenotype in Mice. Frontiers in Immunology, 10, p.894. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Cardona, P., Amat, I., Gordillo, S., Arcos, V., Guirado, E., Díaz, J., Vilaplana, C., Tapia, G. and Ausina, V., 2005. Immunotherapy with fragmented Mycobacterium tuberculosis cells increases the effectiveness of chemotherapy against a chronical infection in a murine model of tuberculosis. Vaccine, 23(11), pp.1393–1398 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Vilaplana, C., Montané, E., Pinto, S., Barriocanal, A., Domenech, G., Torres, F., Cardona, P. and Costa, J., 2010. Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase I Clinical Trial of the therapeutical antituberculous vaccine RUTI®. Vaccine, 28(4), pp.1106–1116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Nell, A., D’lom, E., Bouic, P., Sabaté, M., Bosser, R., Picas, J., Amat, M., Churchyard, G. and Cardona, P., 2014. Safety, Tolerability, and Immunogenicity of the Novel Antituberculous Vaccine RUTI: Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Clinical Trial in Patients with Latent Tuberculosis Infection. PLoS ONE, 9(2), p.e89612. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 73.Johansen, P., Fettelschoss, A., Amstutz, B., Selchow, P., Waeckerle-Men, Y., Keller, P., Deretic, V., Held, L., Kündig, T., Böttger, E. and Sander, P., 2011. Relief from Zmp1-Mediated Arrest of Phagosome Maturation Is Associated with Facilitated Presentation and Enhanced Immunogenicity of Mycobacterial Antigens. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, 18(6), pp.907–913 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Sander, P., Clark, S., Petrera, A., Vilaplana, C., Meuli, M., Selchow, P., Zelmer, A., Mohanan, D., Andreu, N., Rayner, E., Dal Molin, M., Bancroft, G., Johansen, P., Cardona, P., Williams, A. and Böttger, E., 2015. Deletion of zmp1 improves Mycobacterium bovis BCG-mediated protection in a guinea pig model of tuberculosis. Vaccine, 33(11), pp.1353–1359 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Vergne, I., Chua, J., Lee, H., Lucas, M., Belisle, J. and Deretic, V., 2005. Mechanism of phagolysosome biogenesis block by viable Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(11), pp.4033–4038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Counoupas, C., Pinto, R., Nagalingam, G., Hill-Cawthorne, G., Feng, C., Britton, W. and Triccas, J., 2016. Mycobacterium tuberculosis components expressed during chronic infection of the lung contribute to long-term control of pulmonary tuberculosis in mice. npj Vaccines, 1(1), p.16012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Counoupas, C., Pinto, R., Nagalingam, G., Britton, W. and Triccas, J., 2018. Protective efficacy of recombinant BCG over-expressing protective, stage-specific antigens of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Vaccine, 36(19), pp.2619–2629 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Counoupas, C., Pinto, R., Nagalingam, G., Britton, W., Petrovsky, N. and Triccas, J., 2017. Delta inulin-based adjuvants promote the generation of polyfunctional CD4+ T cell responses and protection against Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. Scientific Reports, 7(1), p.8582. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Kaufmann, S., Cotton, M., Eisele, B., Gengenbacher, M., Grode, L., Hesseling, A. and Walzl, G., 2014. The BCG replacement vaccine VPM1002: from drawing board to clinical trial. Expert Review of Vaccines, 13(5), pp.619–630 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Grode, L., Seiler, P., Baumann, S., Hess, J., Brinkmann, V., Eddine, A., Mann, P., Goosmann, C., Bandermann, S., Smith, D., Bancroft, G., Reyrat, J., Soolingen, D., Raupach, B. and Kaufmann, S., 2005. Increased vaccine efficacy against tuberculosis of recombinant Mycobacterium bovis bacille Calmette-Guerin mutants that secrete listeriolysin. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 115(9), pp.2472–2479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Vogelzang, A., Perdomo, C., Zedler, U., Kuhlmann, S., Hurwitz, R., Gengenbacher, M. and Kaufmann, S., 2014. Central Memory CD4+ T Cells Are Responsible for the Recombinant Bacillus Calmette-Guérin ΔureC::hly Vaccine's Superior Protection Against Tuberculosis. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 210(12), pp.1928–1937 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Desel, C., Dorhoi, A., Bandermann, S., Grode, L., Eisele, B. and Kaufmann, S., 2011. Recombinant BCG ΔureC hly+ Induces Superior Protection Over Parental BCG by Stimulating a Balanced Combination of Type 1 and Type 17 Cytokine Responses. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 204(10), pp.1573–1584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Gengenbacher, M., Kaiser, P., Schuerer, S., Lazar, D. and Kaufmann, S., 2016. Post-exposure vaccination with the vaccine candidate Bacillus Calmette–Guérin ΔureC::hly induces superior protection in a mouse model of subclinical tuberculosis. Microbes and Infection, 18(5), pp.364–368 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Loxton, A., Knaul, J., Grode, L., Gutschmidt, A., Meller, C., Eisele, B., Johnstone, H., van der Spuy, G., Maertzdorf, J., Kaufmann, S., Hesseling, A., Walzl, G. and Cotton, M., 2016. Safety and Immunogenicity of the Recombinant Mycobacterium bovis BCG Vaccine VPM1002 in HIV-Unexposed Newborn Infants in South Africa. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, 24(2), pp.e00439–16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 85.Bekker, L., Dintwe, O., Fiore-Gartland, A., Middelkoop, K., Hutter, J., Williams, A., Randhawa, A., Ruhwald, M., Kromann, I., Andersen, P., DiazGranados, C., Rutkowski, K., Tait, D., Miner, M., Andersen-Nissen, E., De Rosa, S., Seaton, K., Tomaras, G., McElrath, M., Ginsberg, A. and Kublin, J., 2020. A phase 1b randomized study of the safety and immunological responses to vaccination with H4:IC31, H56:IC31, and BCG revaccination in Mycobacterium tuberculosis-uninfected adolescents in Cape Town, South Africa. EClinicalMedicine, 21, p.100313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Nemes, E., Geldenhuys, H., Rozot, V., Rutkowski, K., Ratangee, F., Bilek, N., Mabwe, S., Makhethe, L., Erasmus, M., Toefy, A., Mulenga, H., Hanekom, W., Self, S., Bekker, L., Ryall, R., Gurunathan, S., DiazGranados, C., Andersen, P., Kromann, I., Evans, T., Ellis, R., Landry, B., Hokey, D., Hopkins, R., Ginsberg, A., Scriba, T. and Hatherill, M., 2018. Prevention of M. tuberculosis Infection with H4:IC31 Vaccine or BCG Revaccination. New England Journal of Medicine, 379(2), pp.138–149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Barreto, M., Pereira, S., Pilger, D., Cruz, A., Cunha, S., Sant’Anna, C., Ichihara, M., Genser, B. and Rodrigues, L., 2011. Evidence of an effect of BCG revaccination on incidence of tuberculosis in school-aged children in Brazil: Second report of the BCG-REVAC cluster-randomised trial. Vaccine, 29(31), pp.4875–4877 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Rodrigues, L., Pereira, S., Cunha, S., Genser, B., Ichihara, M., de Brito, S., Hijjar, M., Cruz, A., Sant'Anna, C., Bierrenbach, A., Barreto, M. and Dourado, I., 2005. Effect of BCG revaccination on incidence of tuberculosis in school-aged children in Brazil: the BCG-REVAC cluster-randomised trial. The Lancet, 366(9493), pp.1290–1295 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Vordermeier, H., Villarreal-Ramos, B., Cockle, P., McAulay, M., Rhodes, S., Thacker, T., Gilbert, S., McShane, H., Hill, A., Xing, Z. and Hewinson, R., 2009. Viral Booster Vaccines Improve Mycobacterium bovis BCG-Induced Protection against Bovine Tuberculosis. Infection and Immunity, 77(8), pp.3364–3373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.de Val Pérez, B., Villarreal-Ramos, B., Nofrarías, M., López-Soria, S., Romera, N., Singh, M., Abad, F., Xing, Z., Vordermeier, H. and Domingo, M., 2012. Goats Primed with Mycobacterium bovis BCG and Boosted with a Recombinant Adenovirus Expressing Ag85A Show Enhanced Protection against Tuberculosis. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, 19(9), pp.1339–1347 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Metcalfe, H., Steinbach, S., Jones, G., Connelley, T., Morrison, W., Vordermeier, M. and Villarreal-Ramos, B., 2016. Protection associated with a TB vaccine is linked to increased frequency of Ag85A-specific CD4 + T cells but no increase in avidity for Ag85A. Vaccine, 34(38), pp.4520–4525 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Wang, J., Thorson, L., Stokes, R., Santosuosso, M., Huygen, K., Zganiacz, A., Hitt, M. and Xing, Z., 2004. Single Mucosal, but Not Parenteral, Immunization with Recombinant Adenoviral-Based Vaccine Provides Potent Protection from Pulmonary Tuberculosis. The Journal of Immunology, 173(10), pp.6357–6365 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Li, W., Li, M., Deng, G., Zhao, L., Liu, X. and Wang, Y., 2015. Prime-boost vaccination with Bacillus Calmette Guerin and a recombinant adenovirus co-expressing CFP10, ESAT6, Ag85A and Ag85B of Mycobacterium tuberculosis induces robust antigen-specific immune responses in mice. Molecular Medicine Reports, 12(2), pp.3073–3080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Radošević, K., Wieland, C., Rodriguez, A., Weverling, G., Mintardjo, R., Gillissen, G., Vogels, R., Skeiky, Y., Hone, D., Sadoff, J., van der Poll, T., Havenga, M. and Goudsmit, J., 2007. Protective Immune Responses to a Recombinant Adenovirus Type 35 Tuberculosis Vaccine in Two Mouse Strains: CD4 and CD8 T-Cell Epitope Mapping and Role of Gamma Interferon. Infection and Immunity, 75(8), pp.4105–4115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Hoft, D., Blazevic, A., Stanley, J., Landry, B., Sizemore, D., Kpamegan, E., Gearhart, J., Scott, A., Kik, S., Pau, M., Goudsmit, J., McClain, J. and Sadoff, J., 2012. A recombinant adenovirus expressing immunodominant TB antigens can significantly enhance BCG-induced human immunity. Vaccine, 30(12), pp.2098–2108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Tkachuk, A., Gushchin, V., Potapov, V., Demidenko, A., Lunin, V. and Gintsburg, A., 2017. Multi-subunit BCG booster vaccine GamTBvac: Assessment of immunogenicity and protective efficacy in murine and guinea pig TB models. PLOS ONE, 12(4), p.e0176784. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 97.Vasina, D., Kleymenov, D., Manuylov, V., Mazunina, E., Koptev, E., Tukhovskaya, E., Murashev, A., Gintsburg, A., Gushchin, V. and Tkachuk, A., 2019. First-In-Human Trials of GamTBvac, a Recombinant Subunit Tuberculosis Vaccine Candidate: Safety and Immunogenicity Assessment. Vaccines, 7(4), p.166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Aagaard, C., Hoang, T., Izzo, A., Billeskov, R., Troudt, J., Arnett, K., Keyser, A., Elvang, T., Andersen, P. and Dietrich, J., 2009. Protection and Polyfunctional T Cells Induced by Ag85B-TB10.4/IC31® against Mycobacterium tuberculosis Is Highly Dependent on the Antigen Dose. PLoS ONE, 4(6), p.e5930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 99.Geldenhuys, H., Mearns, H., Miles, D., Tameris, M., Hokey, D., Shi, Z., Bennett, S., Andersen, P., Kromann, I., Hoff, S., Hanekom, W., Mahomed, H., Hatherill, M., Scriba, T., van Rooyen, M., Bruce McClain, J., Ryall, R. and de Bruyn, G., 2015. The tuberculosis vaccine H4:IC31 is safe and induces a persistent polyfunctional CD4 T cell response in South African adults: A randomized controlled trial. Vaccine, 33(30), pp.3592–3599 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Norrby, M., Vesikari, T., Lindqvist, L., Maeurer, M., Ahmed, R., Mahdavifar, S., Bennett, S., McClain, J., Shepherd, B., Li, D., Hokey, D., Kromann, I., Hoff, S., Andersen, P., de Visser, A., Joosten, S., Ottenhoff, T., Andersson, J. and Brighenti, S., 2017. Safety and immunogenicity of the novel H4:IC31 tuberculosis vaccine candidate in BCG-vaccinated adults: Two phase I dose escalation trials. Vaccine, 35(12), pp.1652–1661 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Aagaard, C., Hoang, T., Dietrich, J., Cardona, P., Izzo, A., Dolganov, G., Schoolnik, G., Cassidy, J., Billeskov, R. and Andersen, P., 2011. A multistage tuberculosis vaccine that confers efficient protection before and after exposure. Nature Medicine, 17(2), pp.189–194 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Lin, P., Dietrich, J., Tan, E., Abalos, R., Burgos, J., Bigbee, C., Bigbee, M., Milk, L., Gideon, H., Rodgers, M., Cochran, C., Guinn, K., Sherman, D., Klein, E., Janssen, C., Flynn, J. and Andersen, P., 2012. The multistage vaccine H56 boosts the effects of BCG to protect cynomolgus macaques against active tuberculosis and reactivation of latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 122(1), pp.303–314 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Billeskov, R., Tan, E., Cang, M., Abalos, R., Burgos, J., Pedersen, B., Christensen, D., Agger, E. and Andersen, P., 2016. Testing the H56 Vaccine Delivered in 4 Different Adjuvants as a BCG-Booster in a Non-Human Primate Model of Tuberculosis. PLOS ONE, 11(8), p.e0161217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 104.Luabeya, A., Kagina, B., Tameris, M., Geldenhuys, H., Hoff, S., Shi, Z., Kromann, I., Hatherill, M., Mahomed, H., Hanekom, W., Andersen, P., Scriba, T., Schoeman, E., Krohn, C., Day, C., Africa, H., Makhethe, L., Smit, E., Brown, Y., Suliman, S., Hughes, E., Bang, P., Snowden, M., McClain, B. and Hussey, G., 2015. First-in-human trial of the post-exposure tuberculosis vaccine H56:IC31 in Mycobacterium tuberculosis infected and non-infected healthy adults. Vaccine, 33(33), pp.4130–4140 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Suliman, S., Luabeya, A., Geldenhuys, H., Tameris, M., Hoff, S., Shi, Z., Tait, D., Kromann, I., Ruhwald, M., Rutkowski, K., Shepherd, B., Hokey, D., Ginsberg, A., Hanekom, W., Andersen, P., Scriba, T., Hatherill, M., Oelofse, R., Stone, L., Swarts, A., Onrust, R., Jacobs, G., Coetzee, L., Khomba, G., Diamond, B., Companie, A., Veldsman, A., Mulenga, H., Cloete, Y., Steyn, M., Africa, H., Nkantsu, L., Smit, E., Botes, J., Bilek, N. and Mabwe, S., 2019. Dose Optimization of H56:IC31 Vaccine for Tuberculosis-Endemic Populations. A Double-Blind, Placebo-controlled, Dose-Selection Trial. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 199(2), pp.220–231 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Bertholet, S., Ireton, G., Ordway, D., Windish, H., Pine, S., Kahn, M., Phan, T., Orme, I., Vedvick, T., Baldwin, S., Coler, R. and Reed, S., 2010. A Defined Tuberculosis Vaccine Candidate Boosts BCG and Protects Against Multidrug-Resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Science Translational Medicine, 2(53), pp.53ra74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 107.Baldwin, S., Bertholet, S., Reese, V., Ching, L., Reed, S. and Coler, R., 2012. The Importance of Adjuvant Formulation in the Development of a Tuberculosis Vaccine. The Journal of Immunology, 188(5), pp.2189–2197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Kwon, K., Lee, A., Larsen, S., Baldwin, S., Coler, R., Reed, S., Cho, S., Ha, S. and Shin, S., 2019. Long-term protective efficacy with a BCG-prime ID93/GLA-SE boost regimen against the hyper-virulent Mycobacterium tuberculosis strain K in a mouse model. Scientific Reports, 9(1), p.15560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Baldwin, S., Reese, V., Huang, P., Beebe, E., Podell, B., Reed, S. and Coler, R., 2015. Protection and Long-Lived Immunity Induced by the ID93/GLA-SE Vaccine Candidate against a Clinical Mycobacterium tuberculosis Isolate. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, 23(2), pp.137–147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Coler, R., Day, T., Ellis, R., Piazza, F., Beckmann, A., Vergara, J., Rolf, T., Lu, L., Alter, G., Hokey, D., Jayashankar, L., Walker, R., Snowden, M., Evans, T., Ginsberg, A. and Reed, S., 2018. The TLR-4 agonist adjuvant, GLA-SE, improves magnitude and quality of immune responses elicited by the ID93 tuberculosis vaccine: first-in-human trial. npj Vaccines, 3(1), p.34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Baldwin, S., Reese, V., Granger, B., Orr, M., Ireton, G., Coler, R. and Reed, S., 2014. The ID93 Tuberculosis Vaccine Candidate Does Not Induce Sensitivity to Purified Protein Derivative. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, 21(9), pp.1309–1313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Lahey, T., Laddy, D., Hill, K., Schaeffer, J., Hogg, A., Keeble, J., Dagg, B., Ho, M., Arbeit, R. and von Reyn, C., 2016. Immunogenicity and Protective Efficacy of the DAR-901 Booster Vaccine in a Murine Model of Tuberculosis. PLOS ONE, 11(12), p.e0168521. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 113.von Reyn, C., Lahey, T., Arbeit, R., Landry, B., Kailani, L., Adams, L., Haynes, B., Mackenzie, T., Wieland-Alter, W., Connor, R., Tvaroha, S., Hokey, D., Ginsberg, A. and Waddell, R., 2017. Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated whole cell tuberculosis vaccine booster in adults primed with BCG: A randomized, controlled trial of DAR-901. PLOS ONE, 12(5), p.e0175215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 114.Masonou, T., Hokey, D., Lahey, T., Halliday, A., Berrocal-Almanza, L., Wieland-Alter, W., Arbeit, R., Lalvani, A. and von Reyn, C., 2019. CD4+ T cell cytokine responses to the DAR-901 booster vaccine in BCG-primed adults: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. PLOS ONE, 14(5), p.e0217091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 115.Martin, C., Williams, A., Hernandez-Pando, R., Cardona, P., Gormley, E., Bordat, Y., Soto, C., Clark, S., Hatch, G., Aguilar, D., Ausina, V. and Gicquel, B., 2006. The live Mycobacterium tuberculosis phoP mutant strain is more attenuated than BCG and confers protective immunity against tuberculosis in mice and guinea pigs. Vaccine, 24(17), pp.3408–3419 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Aguilo, N., Uranga, S., Marinova, D., Monzon, M., Badiola, J. and Martin, C., 2016. MTBVAC vaccine is safe, immunogenic and confers protective efficacy against Mycobacterium tuberculosis in newborn mice. Tuberculosis, 96, pp.71–74 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Tameris, M., Mearns, H., Penn-Nicholson, A., Gregg, Y., Bilek, N., Mabwe, S., Geldenhuys, H., Shenje, J., Luabeya, A., Murillo, I., Doce, J., Aguilo, N., Marinova, D., Puentes, E., Rodríguez, E., Gonzalo-Asensio, J., Fritzell, B., Thole, J., Martin, C., Scriba, T., Hatherill, M., Africa, H., Arendsen, D., Botes, N., Cloete, Y., De Kock, M., Erasmus, M., Jack, L., Kafaar, F., Kalepu, X., Khomba, N., Kruger, S., Leopeng, T., Makhethe, L., Mouton, A., Mulenga, H., Musvosvi, M., Noble, J., Opperman, F., Reid, T., Rossouw, S., Schreuder, C., Smit, E., Steyn, M., Tyambethu, P., Van Rooyen, E. and Veldsman, A., 2019. Live-attenuated Mycobacterium tuberculosis vaccine MTBVAC versus BCG in adults and neonates: a randomised controlled, double-blind dose-escalation trial. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 7(9), pp.757–770 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Tarancón, R., Domínguez-Andrés, J., Uranga, S., Ferreira, A., Groh, L., Domenech, M., González-Camacho, F., Riksen, N., Aguilo, N., Yuste, J., Martín, C. and Netea, M., 2020. New live attenuated tuberculosis vaccine MTBVAC induces trained immunity and confers protection against experimental lethal pneumonia. PLOS Pathogens, 16(4), p.e1008404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 119.Roy, A., Tomé, I., Romero, B., Lorente-Leal, V., Infantes-Lorenzo, J., Domínguez, M., Martín, C., Aguiló, N., Puentes, E., Rodríguez, E., de Juan, L., Risalde, M., Gortázar, C., Domínguez, L. and Bezos, J., 2019. Evaluation of the immunogenicity and efficacy of BCG and MTBVAC vaccines using a natural transmission model of tuberculosis. Veterinary Research, 50(1), p.82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Verreck, F., Vervenne, R., Kondova, I., van Kralingen, K., Remarque, E., Braskamp, G., van der Werff, N., Kersbergen, A., Ottenhoff, T., Heidt, P., Gilbert, S., Gicquel, B., Hill, A., Martin, C., McShane, H. and Thomas, A., 2009. MVA.85A Boosting of BCG and an Attenuated, phoP Deficient M. tuberculosis Vaccine Both Show Protective Efficacy Against Tuberculosis in Rhesus Macaques. PLoS ONE, 4(4), p.e5264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 121.Spertini, F., Audran, R., Chakour, R., Karoui, O., Steiner-Monard, V., Thierry, A., Mayor, C., Rettby, N., Jaton, K., Vallotton, L., Lazor-Blanchet, C., Doce, J., Puentes, E., Marinova, D., Aguilo, N. and Martin, C., 2015. Safety of human immunisation with a live-attenuated Mycobacterium tuberculosis vaccine: a randomised, double-blind, controlled phase I trial. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 3(12), pp.953–962 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Clark, S., Lanni, F., Marinova, D., Rayner, E., Martin, C. and Williams, A., 2017. Revaccination of Guinea Pigs With the Live Attenuated Mycobacterium tuberculosis Vaccine MTBVAC Improves BCG's Protection Against Tuberculosis. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 216(5), pp.525–533 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Aguilo, N., Uranga, S., Mata, E., Tarancon, R., Gómez, A., Marinova, D., Otal, I., Monzón, M., Badiola, J., Montenegro, D., Puentes, E., Rodríguez, E., Vervenne, R., Sombroek, C., Verreck, F. and Martín, C., 2020. Respiratory Immunization With a Whole Cell Inactivated Vaccine Induces Functional Mucosal Immunoglobulins Against Tuberculosis in Mice and Non-human Primates. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, p.1339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Saini, V., Raghuvanshi, S., Talwar, G., Ahmed, N., Khurana, J., Hasnain, S., Tyagi, A. and Tyagi, A., 2009. Polyphasic Taxonomic Analysis Establishes Mycobacterium indicus pranii as a Distinct Species. PLoS ONE, 4(7), p.e6263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 125.Yadava, A., Suresh, N., Zaheer, S., Talwar, G. and Mukherjee, R., 1991. T-Cell Responses to Fractionated Antigens of Mycobacterium w, a Candidate Anti-Leprosy Vaccine, in Leprosy Patients. Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, 34(1), pp.23–31 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Singh, Y., Kohli, S., Sowpati, D., Rahman, S., Tyagi, A. and Hasnain, S., 2014. Gene cooption in Mycobacteria and search for virulence attributes: Comparative proteomic analyses of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Mycobacterium indicus pranii and other mycobacteria. International Journal of Medical Microbiology, 304(5–6), pp.742–748 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Gupta, A., Geetha, N., Mani, J., Upadhyay, P., Katoch, V., Natrajan, M., Gupta, U. and Bhaskar, S., 2008. Immunogenicity and Protective Efficacy of “Mycobacterium w” against Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Mice Immunized with Live versus Heat-Killed M. w by the Aerosol or Parenteral Route. Infection and Immunity, 77(1), pp.223–231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Singh, B., Saqib, M., Gupta, A., Kumar, P. and Bhaskar, S., 2017. Autophagy induction by Mycobacterium indicus pranii promotes Mycobacterium tuberculosis clearance from RAW 264.7 macrophages. PLOS ONE, 12(12), p.e0189606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 129.Gupta, A., Saqib, M., Singh, B., Pal, L., Nishikanta, A. and Bhaskar, S., 2019. Mycobacterium indicus pranii Induced Memory T-Cells in Lung Airways Are Sentinels for Improved Protection Against M.tb Infection. Frontiers in Immunology, 10, p.2359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Nagpal, P., Kesarwani, A., Sahu, P. and Upadhyay, P., 2019. Aerosol immunization by alginate coated mycobacterium (BCG/MIP) particles provide enhanced immune response and protective efficacy than aerosol of plain mycobacterium against M.tb. H37Rv infection in mice. BMC Infectious Diseases, 19(1), p.568. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Gupta, A., Ahmad, F., Ahmad, F., Gupta, U., Natarajan, M., Katoch, V. and Bhaskar, S., 2012. Efficacy of Mycobacterium indicus pranii Immunotherapy as an Adjunct to Chemotherapy for Tuberculosis and Underlying Immune Responses in the Lung. PLoS ONE, 7(7), p.e39215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 132.Stanford, J., Stanford, C. and Grange, J., 2004. Immunotherapy with mycobacterium vaccae in the treatment of tuberculosis. Frontiers in Bioscience, 9(1), pp.1701–1719 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Hernandez-Pando, R., Pavon, L., Orozco, E., Rangel, J. and Rook, G., 2000. Interactions between hormone-mediated and vaccine-mediated immunotherapy for pulmonary tuberculosis in BALB/c mice. Immunology, 100(3), pp.391–398 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Bourinbaiar, A., Batbold, U., Efremenko, Y., Sanjagdorj, M., Butov, D., Damdinpurev, N., Grinishina, E., Mijiddorj, O., Kovolev, M., Baasanjav, K., Butova, T., Prihoda, N., Batbold, O., Yurchenko, L., Tseveendorj, A., Arzhanova, O., Chunt, E., Stepanenko, H., Sokolenko, N., Makeeva, N., Tarakanovskaya, M., Borisova, V., Reid, A., Kalashnikov, V., Nyasulu, P., Prabowo, S., Jirathitikal, V., Bain, A., Stanford, C. and Stanford, J., 2020. Phase III, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind trial of tableted, therapeutic TB vaccine (V7) containing heat-killed M. vaccae administered daily for one month. Journal of Clinical Tuberculosis and Other Mycobacterial Diseases, 18, p.100141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Dicks, M., Spencer, A., Edwards, N., Wadell, G., Bojang, K., Gilbert, S., Hill, A. and Cottingham, M., 2012. A Novel Chimpanzee Adenovirus Vector with Low Human Seroprevalence: Improved Systems for Vector Derivation and Comparative Immunogenicity. PLoS ONE, 7(7), p.e40385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 136.Stylianou, E., Griffiths, K., Poyntz, H., Harrington-Kandt, R., Dicks, M., Stockdale, L., Betts, G. and McShane, H., 2015. Improvement of BCG protective efficacy with a novel chimpanzee adenovirus and a modified vaccinia Ankara virus both expressing Ag85A. Vaccine, 33(48), pp.6800–6808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Montoya, J., Solon, J., Cunanan, S., Acosta, L., Bollaerts, A., Moris, P., Janssens, M., Jongert, E., Demoitié, M., Mettens, P., Gatchalian, S., Vinals, C., Cohen, J. and Ofori-Anyinam, O., 2013. A Randomized, Controlled Dose-Finding Phase II Study of the M72/AS01 Candidate Tuberculosis Vaccine in Healthy PPD-Positive Adults. Journal of Clinical Immunology, 33(8), pp.1360–1375 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Kumarasamy, N., Poongulali, S., Beulah, F., Akite, E., Ayuk, L., Bollaerts, A., Demoitié, M., Jongert, E., Ofori-Anyinam, O. and Van Der Meeren, O., 2018. Long-term safety and immunogenicity of the M72/AS01E candidate tuberculosis vaccine in HIV-positive and -negative Indian adults. Medicine, 97(45), p.e13120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 139.Cardona, P., 2006. RUTI: A new chance to shorten the treatment of latent tuberculosis infection. Tuberculosis, 86(3–4), pp.273–289 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Festjens, N., Bogaert, P., Batni, A., Houthuys, E., Plets, E., Vanderschaeghe, D., Laukens, B., Asselbergh, B., Parthoens, E., De Rycke, R., Willart, M., Jacques, P., Elewaut, D., Brouckaert, P., Lambrecht, B., Huygen, K. and Callewaert, N., 2011. Disruption of the SapM locus in Mycobacterium bovis BCG improves its protective efficacy as a vaccine against M. tuberculosis. EMBO Molecular Medicine, 3(4), pp.222–234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Grode, L., Ganoza, C., Brohm, C., Weiner, J., Eisele, B. and Kaufmann, S., 2013. Safety and immunogenicity of the recombinant BCG vaccine VPM1002 in a phase 1 open-label randomized clinical trial. Vaccine, 31(9), pp.1340–1348 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Nieuwenhuizen, N., Kulkarni, P., Shaligram, U., Cotton, M., Rentsch, C., Eisele, B., Grode, L. and Kaufmann, S., 2017. The Recombinant Bacille Calmette–Guérin Vaccine VPM1002: Ready for Clinical Efficacy Testing. Frontiers in Immunology, 8, p.1147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Santosuosso, M., McCormick, S., Zhang, X., Zganiacz, A. and Xing, Z., 2006. Intranasal Boosting with an Adenovirus-Vectored Vaccine Markedly Enhances Protection by Parenteral Mycobacterium bovis BCG Immunization against Pulmonary Tuberculosis. Infection and Immunity, 74(8), pp.4634–4643 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Abel, B., Tameris, M., Mansoor, N., Gelderbloem, S., Hughes, J., Abrahams, D., Makhethe, L., Erasmus, M., Kock, M., van der Merwe, L., Hawkridge, A., Veldsman, A., Hatherill, M., Schirru, G., Pau, M., Hendriks, J., Weverling, G., Goudsmit, J., Sizemore, D., McClain, J., Goetz, M., Gearhart, J., Mahomed, H., Hussey, G., Sadoff, J. and Hanekom, W., 2010. The Novel Tuberculosis Vaccine, AERAS-402, Induces Robust and Polyfunctional CD4+and CD8+T Cells in Adults. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 181(12), pp.1407–1417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Skeiky, Y., Dietrich, J., Lasco, T., Stagliano, K., Dheenadhayalan, V., Goetz, M., Cantarero, L., Basaraba, R., Bang, P., Kromann, I., McMclain, J., Sadoff, J. and Andersen, P., 2010. Non-clinical efficacy and safety of HyVac4:IC31 vaccine administered in a BCG prime–boost regimen. Vaccine, 28(4), pp.1084–1093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Arbues, A., Aguilo, J., Gonzalo-Asensio, J., Marinova, D., Uranga, S., Puentes, E., Fernandez, C., Parra, A., Cardona, P., Vilaplana, C., Ausina, V., Williams, A., Clark, S., Malaga, W., Guilhot, C., Gicquel, B. and Martin, C., 2013. Construction, characterization and preclinical evaluation of MTBVAC, the first live-attenuated M. tuberculosis-based vaccine to enter clinical trials. Vaccine, 31(42), pp.4867–4873 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Aguilo, N., Gonzalo-Asensio, J., Alvarez-Arguedas, S., Marinova, D., Gomez, A., Uranga, S., Spallek, R., Singh, M., Audran, R., Spertini, F. and Martin, C., 2017. Reactogenicity to major tuberculosis antigens absent in BCG is linked to improved protection against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Nature Communications, 8(1), p.16085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES