Original antigenic sin: A comprehensive review

The concept of “original antigenic sin” was first proposed by Thomas Francis, Jr. in 1960. This phenomenon has the potential to rewrite what we understand about how the immune system responds to infections and its mechanistic implications on how vaccines should be designed. Antigenic sin has been de...

Full description

Autores:
Tipo de recurso:
Fecha de publicación:
2017
Institución:
Universidad del Rosario
Repositorio:
Repositorio EdocUR - U. Rosario
Idioma:
eng
OAI Identifier:
oai:repository.urosario.edu.co:10336/22259
Acceso en línea:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaut.2017.04.008
https://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/22259
Palabra clave:
Antigen
Epitope
Vaccine
Antigen
Antibody dependent enhancement
Chlamydia trachomatis
Dengue virus
Enterovirus
Human bocavirus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Humoral immunity
Immune response
Influenza virus
Leptospirosis
Nonhuman
Plasmodium
Priority journal
Review
Secondary immune response
Zika virus
Animal
Biological model
Human
Immunological memory
Immunological tolerance
Immunology
Infection
Animals
Antigens
Humans
Immune tolerance
Immunodominant epitopes
Immunologic memory
Infection
Vaccines
Antibody-dependent enhancement
Bocavirus
Dengue
Influenza
Memory immune response
Vaccination
Zika virus
humoral
immunological
Immunity
Models
Rights
License
Abierto (Texto Completo)
Description
Summary:The concept of “original antigenic sin” was first proposed by Thomas Francis, Jr. in 1960. This phenomenon has the potential to rewrite what we understand about how the immune system responds to infections and its mechanistic implications on how vaccines should be designed. Antigenic sin has been demonstrated to occur in several infectious diseases in both animals and humans, including human influenza infection and dengue fever. The basis of “original antigenic sin” requires immunological memory, and our immune system ability to autocorrect. In the context of viral infections, it is expected that if we are exposed to a native strain of a pathogen, we should be able to mount a secondary immune response on subsequent exposure to the same pathogen. “Original antigenic sin” will not contradict this well-established immunological process, as long as the subsequent infectious antigen is identical to the original one. But “original antigenic sin” implies that when the epitope varies slightly, then the immune system relies on memory of the earlier infection, rather than mount another primary or secondary response to the new epitope which would allow faster and stronger responses. The result is that the immunological response may be inadequate against the new strain, because the immune system does not adapt and instead relies on its memory to mount a response. In the case of vaccines, if we only immunize to a single strain or epitope, and if that strain/epitope changes over time, then the immune system is unable to mount an accurate secondary response. In addition, depending of the first viral exposure the secondary immune response can result in an antibody-dependent enhancement of the disease or at the opposite, it could induce anergy. Both of them triggering loss of pathogen control and inducing aberrant clinical consequences. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd