MONOCLONAL-ANTIBODIES OF 3 DIFFERENT IMMUNOGLOBULIN-G ISOTYPES PRODUCED BY IMMUNIZATION WITH A SYNTHETIC PEPTIDE OR NATIVE PROTEIN PROTECT MICE AGAINST CHALLENGE WITH PLASMODIUM-YOELII SPOROZOITES

Passive transfer of monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) against malaria circumsporozoite (CS) proteins protects animals against malaria. Active immunization with synthetic or recombinant peptides induces a level of polyclonal antibodies to sporozoites comparable to those found after passive immunization but does not provide comparable protection. In the Plasmodium yoelii system, synthetic or recombinant peptide-induced antibodies have never been shown to protect. The current studies were designed to determine whether immunogen structure (native protein versus synthetic peptide) or immunoglobulin G (IgG) subclass of antibodies was responsible for the absolute differences between protective, passively transferred MAbs and nonprotective, actively induced polyclonal antibodies. In this study we produced two MAbs, QGP-S1 (IgG1) and QGP-S2 (IgG2b), by immunization with a synthetic peptide based on the P. yoelii CS major repeat, (QGPGAP)4, conjugated to keyhole limpet hemocyanin. These MAbs were compared to NYS1 (IgG3), an anti-CS protein MAb previously produced by immunization with irradiated P. yoelii sporozoites, which recognizes (QGP GAP)2. QGP-S1 and QGP-S2 passively transferred protection. However, when compared with NYS1, there was a hierarchy of protection, NYS1 > QGP-S1 > QGP-S2. There was no correlation between antibody level at challenge as determined by immunofluorescent antibody test against sporozoites or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay against (QGPGAP)2 or apparent antibody avidity for (QGPGAP)2 by sodium thiocyanate elution assay. The data demonstrate that a synthetic peptide can induce protective antibodies and that a specific antibody subclass is not required for protection. Work to determine whether antibody affinity or fine specificity can explain the hierarchy of protection among the MAbs is under way.