candidate microbicides: what we can learn from in vitro work

17
Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from in vitro work Guido Vanham, MD PhD [email protected] Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp

Upload: byron-gay

Post on 31-Dec-2015

21 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from in vitro work. Guido Vanham, MD PhD [email protected] Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp. Vaginal HIV transmission. ssRNA. BINDING INHIBITORS. REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE INHIBITORS. INTEGRASE INHIBITORS. dsDNA. TRANSCRIPTION + TRANSLATION. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

Candidate Microbicides:

What we can learn from in vitro work

Guido Vanham, MD [email protected]

Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp

Page 2: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

Vaginal HIV transmission

Page 3: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

TRANSCRIPTION +TRANSLATION

REVERSETRANSCRIPTASE

INHIBITORS

BINDINGINHIBITORS

FUSIONINHIBITORS

INTEGRASEINHIBITORS

ssRNA

dsDNA

HIV

TARGETCELL

CD-4CCR-5

ITM – Y. Van Herrewege

Direct DISRUPTION

HIV life CyclePotential targets for prevention

Page 4: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

Possible classes of candidate microbicides

- Buffers: Acidform, Buffergel: still in trial but only indirect antiviral action – Virus disrupters: Nonoxynol-9, Savvy (C31G) = obsolete

– Non-specific binding inhibitors: Cellulose sulphate; Carraguard, PRO-2000; Vivagel

some failed, some still in trial but even in vitro weak anti-HIV activity – Inhibitors of gp120:CD4 (e.g. BMS806, BMS793)– Inhibitors gp120:CCR5 (e.g. TAK-779, Maraviroc)– Inhibitors of gp120: DC SIGN (e.g. Mannan)

– Fusion inhibitors (e.g. T20, D-peptides)

– Reverse Transcriptase inhibitors (RTI): in trial Nucleotide RTI: PMPA (Tenofovir) + FTC (Truvada) NNRTI: TMC120 (Dapivirin), UC781

– Integrase inhibitors e.g. L 870 812 (Raltegravir analogue) ?

– Protease inhibitors e.g. Saquinavir ?

Page 5: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

In Vitro

Activity against pathogen

Cellular toxicity profile

Animal models

Safety: - Rabbit vaginal irritation

Efficacy to prevent infection: - NOD/SCID-PBL mice: HIV- Macaques: (SIV or SHIV)

Human (clinical)

Safety - In low-risk women (Phase I)- In representative population (Phase I/II)

Effectiveness (Phase III)

10 + years

Clinical Research Process

Page 6: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

In Vitro models to test HIV Microbicides

- Limited access (HT -)- Risk of damaging epithelium

Main advantages Main disadvantages

CD4/CCR5 (+) cell lines e.g. GHOST, U87, TZMbl

- Rapid screening- Single cycle virus (no L3 required)

Cells not representative for in vivo targets

Mitogen activated PBMC - Standard system- Relatively quick + easy

Only activated T cells

Co-cultures of dendritic cells and T cells (DC/T4)

More representative for primary targets in sexual mucosa

More complex and time consuming manipulation

DC/T4 + epithelial cells Additional relevance Additional complexity

Cervico-vaginal explant Most representative - Limited access- Limited viability- Epithelium not intact = corresponds to worst case in vivo scenario

Page 7: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

Data on candidate microbicides in in vitro models

1) Cell suspension models

A) Cell line (GHOST) + single cycle pseudovirus

B) DC/T4 co-culture: monocyte-derived dendritic cells + autologous T4 cells + primary replicative virus

2) Models of female genital tract mucosa

A) In vitro dual chamber model : DC/T4 + epithelial cells on top

B) Ex vivo cervico-vaginal explant = tissue from hysterectomy

Page 8: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

“Microbicide” Ba-L PV

+

30’

Ghost-CD4-CCR5

48h

Pre-incubation InfectionProduction of

luciferase

55

TAK779 42

T20

Binding gp120:CCR5

Fusion

Reverse transcription PMPA

UC781TMC120

L870812

82 2 7

9

Compound EC50 (nM) gmeanMechanism of inhibition

Binding gp120:CD4 BMS806 5

Integrase

Pseudovirus Test = Screening

Page 9: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

Rescue latent orsubliminal infection

DC/T4 co-culture with compound

14 days 7 daysp24 Ag +

HIV-1

infection 2h

wash step

30 min± ±or

↓↓

¤

↓↓¤

Cell-free virus Compound Compound ¤ T4 cellsT4 cellsCell-associated virus

MO-DCMO-DC PBMC-PHA/IL-2 activated cells

Co-culture model of MO-DC and T4 cells

Page 10: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

Binding/fusionBMS 5TAK 779 42T20 55 140

PMPA 82TMC-120 2 3 2UC781 7 111 52

L 870 812 9 183

Pseudovirus DC/T4 co-culture

+ Ghost-CCR5 + Free HIV + Cell-ass. HIV

EC50 (nM)

848 326 > 10,000

> 10,000 4,500

92RT inhibitors

Integrase Inh

125

1,250

Concluding:All compounds active in PV/GHOST (< 100 nM)

Binding/fusion inhibitors less active with repicative free HIV inactive with cell-associated HIV

Reverse Transc. Inh. very active in all conditions

Integrase Inhibitors intermediate profile

Summary of cell suspension data

Page 11: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

In vivo In vitro

Nature Rev 2006, Lederman MM

Nature Rev 2006, Lederman MM

Dual Chamber model

Page 12: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 10 100 1000

PRO2000

CS

DS5000

PSS

UC-781

R152929

R153430

R165335 - TMC125

R147681 - TMC120

R151694

R278474 - TMC278

0 10 100

Entry-inhibitors

Non-nucleoside reversetranscriptase inhibitors

Conc. entry-inhibitor (µg/ml)

Conc. NNRTI (nM)

% H

IV p

osit

ive

cult

ures

CONCLUSION: Binding Inhibitors: rather inactiveNNRTI: very active

Effect of Binding Inhibitors and NNRTI against Cell-associated HIV in dual chamber model

Page 13: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

Cervical epithelium(Junction zone)

Migratory cells (DC + T cells)

Explant model

Page 14: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

Cervical epithelium

Migratory cells

Various binding inhibitorsUC781 (NNRTI)

Conclusion: Binding Inhibitors: active, but less against migratory cellsNNRTI: very active, especially against migratory cells

(From R Shattock’s group: J Exp Med 2004 and J Virol 2005)

Inhibition of cell-free infection in explant model

Page 15: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

Issues in further development of microbicides

Incomplete knowlegde of transmission process:

- Cell-free or cell-associated virus ?- Which are the relevant target cells and receptors ?- Role of seminal and cervico-vaginal fluid factors ?- Role of normal vaginal flora/STD and “vaginal practices” ?

Avoiding unwanted side-effects:

- Enhancing infection by epithelial damage or inflammation- Limiting therapeutic options by induction of resistance

Page 16: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

Which in vitro test is suitable and predictive?

Impossible to say until first succesful human clinical trial,

In the mean time:

Use several models reflecting aspects of sexual transmission:e.g. DC and T cells (+ epithelial cells)

Explant model Inclusion of seminal and vaginal fluid factors

In addition: - Ensure activity agains cell-free and cell-associated HIV; - Study optimal drug combinations;

- Thorough evaluation of toxicity; - Study consequences of possible resistance development.

Page 17: Candidate Microbicides: What we can learn from  in vitro  work

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Collaborators:

Yven Van Herreweghe; Katty Terrazas; Youssef GaliJo Michiels; Laetitia Aerts; Leo Heyndrickx

Funding

EUROPRISE: sponsored this lecture

EMPRO: European Microbicides Program ANRS: (France)IWT and FWO: Scientific funds of Flemish government DGOS: Belgian Ministry of Development AmfAR: American Foundation for AIDS Research IPM/TIBOTEC CONRAD ITM institutional support