Next Article in Journal
Hafnia alvei Pneumonia: From Bees to Human Beings
Previous Article in Journal
Periodontal Disease in Seropositive Rheumatoid Arthritis: Scoping Review of the Epidemiological Evidence
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
GERMS
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.18683/germs.2021.1264
germs-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
GERMS is published by MDPI from Volume 15 Issue 4 (2025). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with the former publisher Infection Science Forum.
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Perspectives on Passive Antibody Therapy and Peptide-Based Vaccines Against Emerging Pathogens Like SARS-CoV-2

by
Marco Palma
Independent Researcher, Calle San Jose, Torrevieja 03181, Spain
GERMS 2021, 11(2), 287-305; https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2021.1264
Submission received: 16 January 2021 / Revised: 25 April 2021 / Accepted: 1 June 2021 / Published: 2 June 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The current epidemic of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is raising awareness of the need to act faster when dealing with new pathogens. Exposure to an emerging pathogen generates an antibody response that can be used for preventing and treating the infection. These antibodies might have a high specificity to a target, few side effects, and are useful in the absence of an effective vaccine for treating immunocompromised individuals. The approved antibodies against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the viral spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 (e.g., regdanvimab, bamlanivimab, etesevimab, and casirivimab/imdevimab) have been selected from the antibody repertoire of B cells from convalescent patients using flow cytometry, next-generation sequencing, and phage display. This encourages use of these techniques especially phage display, because it does not require expensive types of equipment and can be performed on the lab bench, thereby making it suitable for labs with limited resources. Also, the antibodies in blood samples from convalescent patients can be used to screen pre-made peptide libraries to identify epitopes for vaccine development. Different types of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been developed, including inactivated virus vaccines, mRNA-based vaccines, non-replicating vector vaccines, and protein subunits. mRNA vaccines have numerous advantages over existing vaccines, such as efficacy, ease of manufacture, safety, and cost-effectiveness. Additionally, epitope vaccination may constitute an attractive strategy to induce high levels of antibodies against a pathogen and phages might be used as immunogenic carriers of such peptides. This is a point worth considering further, as phage-based vaccines have been shown to be safe in clinical trials and phages are easy to produce and tolerate high temperatures. In conclusion, identification of the antibody repertoire of recovering patients, and the epitopes they recognize, should be an attractive alternative option for developing therapeutic and prophylactic antibodies and vaccines against emerging pathogens.

Introduction

Despite the impact of improved sanitation and the availability of antibiotics and vaccines, infectious diseases are still the leading cause of death worldwide. Each year, many new infections threaten the health of the local and world populations. Several factors that may influence the appearance of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases have been described by Morse, including microbial adaptation, ecological and demographic factors, movement of people and goods, industry, and worsening public health services [1].
Recently, the outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), began in Wuhan and spread rapidly around the world. This outbreak resulted in more than 144,099,374 confirmed cases, with more than 3,061,912 deaths worldwide by 23 April 2021 [2]. Infection control focuses on quarantining infected persons and restricting the mobility of persons while vaccinating the world population until the threat disappears. Globalization and the movement of people are spreading new, emerging, and re-emerging pathogens worldwide. Therefore, the scientific community must be ready to put all its skills into the search for ways to act quickly to save lives. Advances in technology and knowledge in the life sciences make it possible to identify and isolate epitopes derived from a pathogen that has induced an immune response and the antibodies that have been generated during the infection. This article discusses the prospects for passive antibody therapy and active immunization, including peptide-based vaccines to combat pathogens, with a particular focus on emerging and re-emerging pathogens.

Methods

Literature Search

An extensive literature research was conducted using keyword filters to select articles related to “therapeutic antibodies”, “neutralizing antibodies”, “peptide vaccine” in combination with “SARS-CoV-2”, “emerging” or “re-emerging pathogen”, and “infectious diseases”. This research was carried out on articles published in the PubMed and Scopus databases for the English language from 1 January 2020 to 12 December 2020. Also, articles on the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were examined. Information about approved therapeutic antibodies was collected from the Antibody Society website [3], the incidence of COVID-19 cases was obtained from the World Health Organization (WHO) website [2], and information of the approved COVID-19 vaccines was obtained from the Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society (RAPS) website [4]. The review process is graphically shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Clinical Trials Search

The entire database at ClinicalTrials.gov was searched on 10 January 2021 using the following search terms: condition or disease = “infectious disease”; other terms = “antibody” OR “therapeutic antibody” OR “monoclonal antibodies” OR “therapeutic peptide” OR “peptide vaccine”. The number of clinical trials registered for therapeutic antibodies during the last ten years were counted for all diseases and infectious diseases. Tables were prepared that listed pathogen-specific antibodies, or therapeutic antibodies specific for human proteins, that were used for treatment of infectious diseases and were registered during 2020. Furthermore, a list was prepared of peptide vaccines that were used for the prevention of infectious diseases and that were registered in the last ten years.

Literature Review

Emerging Pathogens

In addition to SARS-CoV-2, several other emerging pathogens have been reported to infect humans during the last two decades [5], including human bocavirus [6], human coronavirus HKU1 [7], human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV) 3 and 4 [8,9], human coronavirus NL63 [10], SARS coronavirus [11], human metapneumovirus [12], Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) [13], and severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) virus [14]. For example, the human bocavirus was identified for the first time in humans in 2005 in children with respiratory tract infections in Sweden. The human coronavirus HKU1 was isolated in January 2004 from a 71-year-old Chinese man who had been hospitalized with pneumonia and bronchiolitis. HTLV-3 and -4 were isolated in 2005 from two hunters of monkeys from the southern forests of Cameroon. The human coronavirus NL63 was isolated in 2004 from a 7-month-old child with bronchiolitis from the Netherlands. Cases of SARS coronavirus were first reported in China in 2002. The human metapneumovirus was isolated in 2001 from young children in the Netherlands. MERS-CoV was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012. SFTS was first clinically identified in a patient with several symptoms including fever and thrombocytopenia in China in 2009.
Some examples from before 2000 include the Nipah virus that appeared in 1998, Ebola in 1976, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in 1959, Marburg virus in 1967, and Lassa fever in 1969. Outbreaks of unknown infectious diseases often become a challenge due to lack of treatment and diagnosis, malnutrition, and the emergence of drug-resistant pathogens.

Antibody Response

Exposure to an emerging pathogen, such as SARS-CoV-2, generates an antibody response that changes over time and between individuals. IgM antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 become detectable during the week following infection and are present for a month before progressively diminishing, while IgG antibodies are detectable within ten to 21 days up to a minimum of three months [15]. The survival of individuals with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection can be attributed in part to a rapid and potent IgG class switching with high-affinity FcR binding capacities [16]. Consequently, antibodies from patients who recover from COVID-19 or other emerging infections can provide valuable information about their neutralization and opsonization capabilities and the epitopes they recognize. The identification of these epitopes and the production of antibodies against them should be one of the main objectives of emerging pathogen research and this is what this review suggests.

Passive and Active Immunization

Convalescent plasma and therapeutic antibodies might be useful treatments for emergent pathogens when no other treatment is available, while vaccines are prophylactic and are designed to induce a specific host immune response against pathogens.

Convalescent Plasma

Convalescent plasma therapy may be the most straightforward option for reducing symptoms and mortality in infected patients when vaccines or drugs are unavailable, but with varying degrees of success. The WHO gave priority to assessing treatment with convalescent whole blood or plasma derived from patients who recovered from Ebola virus disease during the outbreak in West Africa in 2014-2015. However, the report of Griensven et al. indicated that the convalescent plasma therapy did not induce a significant reduction of mortality among Ebola patients [17].
On 23 August 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma as a potentially promising treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients [18]. They concluded that the convalescent plasma may be effective in reducing the severity or length of COVID-19 illness in some hospitalized patients. The advantages of convalescent plasma outweigh the potential risks in the absence of appropriate, approved and available alternative therapies. Since then, numerous studies have been published about how to apply this type of therapy to severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients [19,28]. The FDA released a new evaluation that indicates that convalescent plasma no longer meets clear criteria of being “maybe effective” [29]. According to the new information available, it seems that high titer convalescent plasma should only be given at the beginning of the infection (within 3 days of symptom onset) and it is probably not beneficial after 8 days or more after the onset of symptoms. Therefore, convalescent plasma therapy should be considered with some discretion, but alternative approaches should also be explored.

Passive Antibody Therapy

Administration of purified antibodies may be an alternative to convalescent plasma transfusion. It has been speculated that patients with COVID-19 could be treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or specific human monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that inhibit SARS-CoV-2 binding to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptors and its entry into human cells [30,31]. The receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike glycoprotein (S) protein on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for the attachment of the virus to ACE-2 to gain access to host cells [32]. This interaction can be neutralized with antibodies that compete with ACE-2 for binding to RBD. Neutralizing antibody levels depends on the time after the onset of symptoms, age of the patient, and the severity of the disease. It is not clear what level of neutralizing antibodies is needed to ensure protection against infection and re-infection.
The number of new therapeutic antibodies entering clinical trials in all stages of development increased over time (a linear trend in phases 1 to 4) for all diseases including infectious diseases (Figure 2). Between January 2020 and December 2020, 429 trials were initiated for therapeutic antibodies against different diseases compared with 41 (9.6%) trials against infectious diseases. Among them, 23 antibodies targeted pathogens (Table 1), while the other 18 antibodies targeted human molecules (Table 2). Twenty-six clinical trials were evaluating antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, 6 focused on HIV, 2 on malaria, 1 on herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1), 1 on chikungunya virus, 1 on BK virus, 1 on rabies virus, 1 on dengue virus, 1 on Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and 1 on Clostridioides difficile. Moreover, a significant number of neutralizing antibodies have not been evaluated in clinical trials.
Jin and Simmons reviewed the available literature on neutralizing antibodies that block chikungunya virus from binding to host receptors thereby preventing membrane fusion and virus entry into cells [33]. Chikungunya virus is a type of emerging mosquito-transmitted alphavirus that can cause acute or chronic polyarthritis and foot swelling, and is currently spreading rapidly from endemic regions of Africa and Asia to Europe and America [34]. Corti et al. isolated LCA60, a potent neutralizing antibody derived from the memory B cells of an individual who had been infected with MERS-CoV. This antibody recognizes an epitope in the viral S protein and blocks virus binding to the host receptor CD26, reducing the disease and virus titers in a relevant mouse model [35,36].
Right now, there is an increasing tendency to develop neutralizing antibodies as a result of COVID-19. Antibodies to treat COVID-19 are currently being tested in a number of clinical trials (See Table 1 and Table 2). On 9 November 2020, FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) to Eli Lilly and Company for the combination of antibodies bamlanivimab (LY-CoV555) and etesevimab (LY-CoV016, also known as CB6 or JS016) [37]. These are antibodies produced by B cells from convalescent patients that target the SARS-CoV-2 S protein. Antigen-specific memory B cells were identified and isolated by flow cytometry and the VH and VL were amplified, cloned, and produced in an expression system. On 20 November 2020, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals obtained approval for the therapeutic application of the antibody cocktail casirivimab/imdevimab (REGN10987+REGN10933) [38], which contains both humanized mice antibodies and antibodies from blood samples from recovered COVID-19 patients [3]. The antibody variable regions were determined by next-generation sequencing, and the repertoire for the heavy and light chain pairs was identified, cloned, and produced in an expression system. Recently, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved the use of the antibody regdanvimab (also known as CT-P59) for treating COVID-19 [39]. It functions by targeting the RBD of the viral S protein. Regdanvimab is a fully human immunoglobulin reformatted from a single-chain variable fragment that was selected from a phage display antibody library created by B cells from a convalescent patient [40]. Approved therapeutic antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are shown in Table 4.
Only few antibodies have been approved to treat infections in humans (e.g., ruxibacumab, obiltoxaximab, palivizumab, bezlotoxumab, ibalizumab, KamRAB, etc.) compared to the approved antibodies for other types of disease such as cancer. Raxibacumab and obiltoxaximab neutralize the binding of the anthrax exotoxins to host receptors and their application is for the treatment of Bacillus anthracis infections [41]. Palivizumab is specific for the F-glycoprotein of the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and has been successfully used prophylactically for severe RSV disease especially in infants [42]. Bezlotoxumab has been developed for the prevention of Clostridioides difficile infection recurrence, ibalizumab prescribed for HIV [43], and KamRAB for rabies infection [44]. Approved therapeutic antibodies against different pathogens are shown in Table 5.
The increasing tendency to develop therapeutic antibodies against infectious diseases over the past ten years indicates that they have been accepted as an effective evolving treatment modality that may have a major clinical impact in the future.
Immune Phage Display Libraries
Monoclonal antibodies can be generated by animal immunization and hybridoma techniques or by recombinant protein production [45]. However, the identification and recovery of individual antigen-specific antibodies from the antibody repertoire from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from a human blood donor can be done using flow cytometry [46], next-generation sequencing [47], or different in vitro display techniques (e.g., phage display [48], bacterial display [49], yeast display [50], or mammalian cell surface display [51]). Flow cytometry is a common method used for single B cell analysis and isolation and the next-generation sequencing enables simultaneous reading of up to several million variants of a single gene. However, the main disadvantage of these techniques is the high cost of their production equipment which makes them inaccessible to many labs, especially in developing countries. In contrast, phage display is a technique that only requires the types of equipment available in the majority of microbiology labs and can be done on the lab bench.
The genetic information encoding the selected antibodies from phage display libraries is immediately available which makes it easy to re-clone the isolated antibodies for further manipulation and expression. In addition, it can be used against toxic antigens, with no need for animals, the selection process is fast, and with it human antibodies can be obtained. Some disadvantages of phage display are that it is a laborious process to construct a phage display library and to obtain a library with sufficient diversity to represent the antibody repertoire. Raxibacumab and regdanvimab are the only antibodies approved by the FDA and EMA against pathogens, that had been isolated from phage display libraries. Raxibacumab was selected from a naive library, also generated from healthy individuals. However, regdanvimab was isolated from a immune phage display library constructed from B cells from a convalescent COVID-19 patient. The immune libraries may be a better option for infectious diseases [52]. because they mimic a natural vaccination with a live pathogen in a human host. This is an attractive option to obtain antibodies against immunogenic epitopes since they can be obtained from the V-gene repertoire specific to an infection. Currently, the antibody foravirumab (CR4098), selected from a phage display library constructed from the B cell repertoire of rabies-vaccinated individuals [53], is in a phase II clinical trial. This indicates that phage display could be further exploited in finding therapeutic antibodies to treat infectious diseases as it has been exploited in oncology [54]. and autoimmune diseases [55].
Table 3. Peptide vaccines for the prevention of infectious diseases registered in the last ten years at ClinicalTrials.gov.
Table 3. Peptide vaccines for the prevention of infectious diseases registered in the last ten years at ClinicalTrials.gov.
VaccineTargetPathogenPhasesNCT NumberStart Year
CMVPepVax (CMVpp65-A*0201)HLA A*0201 restricted pp65 CD8 T-cell peptide epitope fused with the P2 peptide epitope of tetanus toxin, and mixed with a Toll-like receptor (TLR) 9 agonistCytomegalovirusI, IINCT015880152012
IINCT023961342015
Multi-peptide CMV-Modified Vaccinia Ankara VaccineModified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA) viral vector encoding three herpes virus cytomegalovirus (CMV) tumor-associated antigens (TAAs), including UL83 (pp65), UL123 (IE1) and UL122 (IE2), with potential immunostimulating activityCytomegalovirusIINCT025069332015
I, IINCT033547282018
IINCT040602772019
CENV3Synthetic peptide vaccine derived from HCV E1 and HCV E2Hepatitis C virusI, IINCT017188342011
Multimeric 001 (M-001)9 conserved peptides from influenza A and BInfluenza H5N1IINCT026911302015
DC-HIV04DC-HIV vaccine with HIV peptidesHIV infectionINCT037586252018
Multipeptide cocktail (pVAC)CoVac-1 (SARS-CoV-2 HLA-DR peptide)COVID-19 vaccineINCT045468412020
StreptInCor55 amino acid residues of the C-terminal portion of the M proteinRheumatic fever, Streptococcus pyogenesINCT039985922021
Table 4. Therapeutic antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 approved before 19 April 2021.
Table 4. Therapeutic antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 approved before 19 April 2021.
Drug CodeSponsorsSourceTechniquesApprovalRef.
Regdanvimab (CT-P59)CelltrionB cells from convalescent patientsPhage displayEU (Mar 2021), South Korea (Feb 2021)Kim et al., 2021 [40]
LY-Co555 + LY-CoV016AbCellera/EliLilly and CompanyB cells from convalescent patientsFlow cytometryUS (Feb 2021), EU (Mar 2021)Shi et al., 2020 [37]
Casirivimab/imdevimab (REGN-COV2) (REGN10987+REGN10933)RegeneronFrom mice + B cells from convalescent patientsNext-generation sequencingUS (No. 2020), EU (Feb 2021)Hansen et al., 2020 [38]
All data were collected from The Antibody Society (antibodysociety.org) [3].
Table 5. Therapeutic antibodies against different pathogens approved before 22 April 2021.
Table 5. Therapeutic antibodies against different pathogens approved before 22 April 2021.
AntibodyPathogenTargetApproval (Year)
AnsuvimabEbola virusReceptor-binding domainUS (2020)
Antibody cocktail: atoltivimab, maftivimab, and odesivimab-ebgnEbola virusGlycoprotein on the surface of Ebola virusUS (2020)
ObiltoxaximabBacillus anthracisB. anthracis exotoxinEU (2020), US (2016)
RabiMabs (antibody cocktail)Rabies virusSite II and III on G protein of rabies virus envelopeIndia (2019)
IbalizumabHIVCD4EU (2019), US (2018)
HyperRAB (HRIG*)Rabies virusRabies virusUS (2018)
BezlotoxumabClostridioides difficileC. difficile enterotoxin BEU (2017), US (2016)
KamRAB/KedRAB (HRIG*)Rabies virusRabies virusUS (2017)
RmabRabies virusAmino acids 336–342 of the GP (antigenic site III)India (2016)
RaxibacumabBacillus anthracisB. anthracis protective antigen (PA)US (2012)
PalivizumabRespiratory syncytial virusAntigenic site II region of F proteinEU (1999), US (1998)
Imogam (HRIG)Rabies virusRabies virusUS (1984)
All data were collected from The Antibody Society (antibodysociety.org) [106]. HRIG—human rabies immune globulin.
Table 6. Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 approved before 19 April 2021.
Table 6. Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 approved before 19 April 2021.
Vaccine TypeVaccine Name (Sponsors)OriginApproval
Inactivated virus vaccinesCoronaVac (Sinovac)ChinaChina, Brazil
BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm)ChinaChina
WIBP-CorV (Sinopharm)ChinaChina
Covaxin (Bharat Biotech)IndiaIndia, Mexico
CoviVacRussiaRussia
mRNA-based vaccinesBNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)MultinationalUS, EU, UK
mRNA-1273 (Moderna)USUS, EU, UK
Non-replicating vector vaccinesConvidicea (CanSino)ChinaChina, Hungary, Mexico, Chile
AZD1222 (AstraZeneca/Oxford)UKEU, UK
Janssen (Johnson & Johnson)The Netherlands, USUS, EU, Canada
Protein-based vaccinesZF2001 (Anhui Zhifei Longcom)China, UzbekistanChina, Uzbekistan
Peptide vaccineEpiVacCorona (Federal Budgetary Research Institution)RussiaBelarus, Russia, Turkmenistan
All data were collected from The Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society (raps.org) [4].
Developing immune or disease-specific antibody libraries helps understanding antibody reactions against specific disease antigens.
Several studies have used phage display to isolate human antibodies specific for bacterial, viral, and parasitic antigens. Recently, a set of fully human neutralizing antibodies was selected from phage display libraries generated from peripheral B cells collected from convalescent or severe COVID-19 patients. Several of these antibodies bind to distinct epitopes on the viral spike RBD and possess neutralizing activity for RBD binding to the human ACE2 receptor [56]. In another study, panning a phage-displayed single- domain antibody library against RBD and S1 subunit identified neutralizing antibodies that could be promising candidates for therapy of COVID-19 [57].
Antibodies to other pathogens than SARS-CoV-2 were identified through the use of immune libraries. For example, immune libraries against pentavalent botulinum toxoid (BoNT/A) revealed that single-chain variable fragments (scFvs) recognized a limited number of immunodominant epitopes exposed on the binding domain of BoNT/A. One group of these antibody fragments exhibited neutralizing activity [58]. Another example is when an scFv phage library was generated from a patient infected with HIV-1 subtype B. Screening of this library with recombinant soluble gp140 envelope proteins led to the identification of scFv clones that specifically recognize a conserved pocket binding domain in gp41 [59]. Ekiert et al. identified antibodies from phage display libraries created from B cells that were collected from Turkish patients who survived H5N1 avian flu infection. These antibodies recognize conserved elements of the receptor-binding site on the hemagglutinin surface glycoprotein, enabling the neutralization of strains of multiple subtypes of influenza A viruses, including H1, H2, and H3 [60]. In a study of helminth parasite infections, scFv fragments against a specific filarial antigen (BmR1) were isolated from an immune library developed with the repertoire of antibodies from individuals who had been confirmed positive for filariasis infection [61].

Active Immunization with Peptides

Active immunity is defined as the process of exposing an individual to an antigen to generate an adaptive immune response [62]. Vaccines are generally considered the gold standard for infection control and, in normal situations, require many years to develop.
According to the WHO, as of 23 April 2021, 91 vaccine candidates were under clinical development to treat COVID-19, and 184 candidate vaccines were in pre-clinical development [63]. More than 973 million vaccine doses have been administered worldwide, while 223 million people have been fully vaccinated by 23 April 23 2021 [64].
Currently, different types of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been developed including inactivated virus vaccines (e.g., CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, etc.), mRNA-based vaccines (e.g., BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273), non-replicating vector vaccines (e.g., Convidicea, AZD1222, and Janssen), protein-based vaccines (e.g., ZF2001), and peptide vaccines (e.g., EpiVacCorona) [65].- [67]. Except for the inactivated virus vaccines, most of them target the surface glycoprotein (S-protein) of SARS-CoV-2 and were showed to have a minimal number of side effects, be risk-free, and efficient in phase III clinical trials. Approved vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are shown in Table 6.
Since peptides can be selected using serum from infected patients, they should represent or mimic the immunogenic epitopes that triggered the immune response. Therefore, epitope vaccination may constitute an attractive strategy to induce high levels of antibodies against a pathogen [68]. EpiVacCorona is a Russian SARS-CoV-2 peptide vaccine approved in Belarus, Russia, and Turkmenistan. Two peptide vaccines are under development, UB-612 developed by the U.S.-based company Vaxxinity which is in phase 2/3 trial, and pVAC, developed by the University Hospital Tuebingen in Germany and is in phase 1 trial [4].
Peptide vaccines have been applied to induce neutralizing antibodies in different mice models using epitopes of the varicella-zoster virus [69], Helicobacter pylori [70], H1N1 influenza virus [71], Ebola virus [72], Plasmodium falciparum [73], Nipah virus [74], and Tropheryma whipplei [75]. There are 36 clinical trials evaluating peptide vaccines against different pathogens, primarily in phases I and II, of which only ten have begun in the past ten years (Table 3). Interestingly, only one study began in 2020 which was for SARS-CoV-2, and another is expected to begin during 2021 for Streptococcus pyogenes. The SARS-CoV-2 study is in phase I trial for evaluating a multi-peptide vaccine (CoVac-1) (ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04546841) that was developed based on identified multiple immunodominant human leukocyte antigen-D related (DR) T-cell epitopes in COVID-19 convalescent individuals [76]. In addition, several other studies are underway to develop peptide-based vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 [77].
One advantage of peptide-based vaccines is that they may eliminate many side effects of allergic and auto-immune reactions associated with classical whole-organism vaccines [78]. Recently, a melanoma peptide vaccine was tested for immunogenicity and safety in 47 participants by Slingluff and colleagues [79]. The peptides were synthesized and purified in GMP conditions and the participants were vaccinated with them in an emulsion with incomplete Freund’s adjuvant or/and polyICLC. They were found to be well tolerated, had clinical activity, and could elicit CD4+ T lymphocyte responses in most participants. Li et al. reviewed the progress and challenges of peptide vaccines [80], Kaumaya et al. reviewed the peptide vaccines in cancer therapy [81], and Di Natale et al. reviewed peptide-based vaccines for COVID-19 [82]. Synthetic peptides are easily synthesized, cost-effective, and relatively safe [78,83,84]. One disadvantage of peptide-based vaccine is that peptides or a single epitope alone are not enough to induce a sufficiently high immune response, so they must be conjugated with biopolymers, encapsulated in nanoparticles [85]. or applied to carrier or adjuvants [68]. to improve the immune response. Virus-like particles can be an alternative to the nanoparticle delivery system of peptides including bacteriophages [86].
The use of phages as immunogenic carriers of peptides could be an attractive vaccine approach. Roehnisch et al. used phage particles as immunological carriers in a clinical phase I/II trial to vaccinate with idiotype vaccine 15 patients with advanced multiple myeloma [87]. They concluded that this approach might be a simple, time- and cost-efficient phage idiotype vaccination strategy. Therefore, this is an approach worthy of further consideration. Greenwood et al. showed that a peptide corresponding to Plasmodium falciparum surface protein displayed on phages was highly immunogenic, not requiring an adjuvant to induce an antibody response [88]. Currently, a phase II clinical trial is evaluating phage vaccine SNS-301 in patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04217720). Nonetheless, the potential for phage vaccination against pathogens, including emerging and re-emerging pathogens, needs to be further explored, in particular the behavior of phages in the human body and how they interact with cellular components [89]. However, this is a promising way of vaccination because it can first select peptide displaying phages using convalescent plasma or convalescent antibodies, and then evaluate them as vaccine candidates.
Peptide Libraries
Many phage display peptide libraries have been constructed and used extensively over the years to characterize epitopes [90,91]. They allow us to select peptides that may share common sequence patterns or have similarities to proteins recorded in protein databases (e.g., NCBI) and thereby identify potential antigens from a pathogen. Screening random peptide libraries with antibodies from convalescent human serum from patients with SARS-CoV infections led to the identification of phages that were specifically bound to these antibodies. Phage derived peptides also show extensive sequence homology with structural proteins of SARS-CoV such as S and M-protein [92]. Zamecnik et al. screened a programmable phage display library (HuCoV VirScan), containing overlapping peptide antigens from several coronavirus types (e.g., SARS-CoV-2), with COVID-19 patient sera. Peptide phages encoding the S (residues 783-839 and 1,124-1,178) and N proteins (residues 209-265 and 142-208) were enriched during panning against human sera and used to develop serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection [93].

Discussion

When an unknown pathogen appears and causes an outbreak, the B cells of the recovering patients become a valuable resource of the antibody repertoire that patients express during infections. This repertoire can be used in convalescent plasma transfusion or to screen for therapeutic antibodies and to identify immunogenic epitopes.
Passive antibody therapy can be an alternative to convalescent plasma therapy because the latter therapy may cause side effects, such as autoimmune reactions and its results can be unpredictable due to variability between lots.
In recent years, the percent of approvals for antibodies has been increasing. Even so, there are only a few successful therapeutic monoclonal antibodies against infectious diseases that have reached the market compared with antibodies in other therapeutic areas.
An important challenge that therapeutic antibodies face is the strong competition with well-established treatments with antibiotics, vaccines, and anti-viral compounds. Laura DeFrancesco published an interesting article in which a group of experts commented on challenges with antibody therapy [94]. There are only a few successful therapeutic antiviral antibodies compared to antibodies in other medical fields such as cancer. Expectations for antiviral antibody therapy seemed to be low because of the high cost of production in comparison to the profits. It is not a profitable market for pharmaceutical companies, as emerging infectious diseases are rare and are mainly affecting developing countries. However, the cost could be reduced by producing antibody fragments such as scFv, antigen-binding fragments (Fab), or nanobodies in prokaryotic systems [95]. Different expression systems (e.g., mammalian, yeast, and prokaryotic) are suitable for both soluble and functionally active protein expression. Escherichia coli was found to be a faster and more cost-effective expression system than Pichia pastoris and Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) [96]. However, it has higher levels of impurities and breakdown products than the other two systems. Therefore, an additional downstream purification step would be required to remove these impurities to improve the quality of antibodies obtained by this system for therapeutic purposes [96]. There are Fab fragments successfully generated in E. coli and approved by the FDA, such as certolizumab pegol (for treatment of Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis) [97]. and ranibizumab (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor) [98]. This encourages investment in prokaryotic production of Fabs or other forms of antibody therapies for the prevention and treatment of emerging or re-emerging infectious diseases.
Even with a vaccine, antibodies could still be needed to treat people who do not respond significantly to vaccination (e.g., infants, elderly, and immunocompromised individuals). From a technical point of view, by Fc region engineering, the half-life of therapeutic antibodies can be increased and their functions such as antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis can be controlled by modulating their recognition by effector cells of the immune system [99]. It is interesting to note that smaller-sized antibodies such as Fabs, scFvs, and nanobodies that can be obtained by phage display can penetrate cells and target intracellular viral proteins [100]. This means that passive antibody therapy with small antibodies could have valuable potential for targeting intracellular pathogens that escape the host immune response.
An alternative promising therapy for infectious diseases is gene therapy. The pathogen can be neutralized by supplying genes coding recombinant antibodies against the pathogen in a gene therapy vector, such as adeno-associated viral vectors (AVAs) to be expressed by the host’s own cells (e.g., muscle cells) [101]. Currently, an antibody gene therapy is being evaluated in a phase I clinical trial (VRC 603), which is testing the safety of adeno-associated virus vector expressing an HIV-1 neutralizing antibody that was originally isolated from the blood of a person with HIV infection (VRC 603 trial is available on ClinicalTrials.gov using identifier NCT03374202).
Human B cell cloning might be the most common approach to identify neutralizing antibodies, and phage display is one of the techniques used to isolate the antibody repertoire from the convalescent B cells. Regdanvimab, an anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody, is an example of phage display’s effectiveness since it is a technique that can be used in any lab without requiring costly equipment, making it accessible to developing countries where the majority of emerging diseases occur and samples are easy to obtain. However, there are some drawbacks, such as the fact that it is a time-consuming process and there is a need to create a new library for each pathogen or disease. Another issue is the formation of artifacts during VH and VL combinations or the fact that certain bacterial clones grow faster than others. However, this can be avoided by continuously monitoring each step during library creation, for example by sequencing multiple clones and ensuring that the bacteria culture grows only for a short period of time.
Peptide vaccine is a promising alternative or complement to the already existing therapeutic approaches. However, more work is required to develop peptide vaccines before they can be used in clinical settings. The most difficult aspect of developing an epitope-based vaccine is determining the epitopes of interest with proper accuracy. Another challenge with peptide vaccine is the low immunogenicity which could be improved with nontoxic adjuvants. Another limitation is that multiple peptides may be required because a single peptide may not provide a sufficient immune response. Also, peptides that are susceptible to enzymatic digestion may need to be encapsulated and delivered with nanoparticles such as copolymer poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) [102,103]. The safety of the delivery approach is of utmost concern when selecting strategies for peptide delivery. However, PLGA is an FDA-approved polymer for use in drug delivery, diagnostics, and other applications that have been in the market for many years.
mRNA vaccines represent a new type of vaccine and they have several advantages over other vaccines including safety, efficacy, speed of production, and cost-effectiveness [104]. The mRNA enters the cells and is used to make viral antigen proteins from inside the cell, which involves natural, post-translational modifications. mRNA vaccine production does not require cell cultures and/or fermentation-based manufacturing processes. They can be naturally degraded with no metabolic toxicity and mRNA vaccines do not enter the nucleus. Some of their disadvantages include the fact that they are not as stable as DNA and proteins and are susceptible to degradation. Also, there are few studies on mRNA vaccines for bacteria and parasites. A major disadvantage of mRNA vaccines is their instability at high temperatures, which makes them unavailable in remote locations. Therefore, phage-based vaccines are a strategy worth further consideration, as phages are stable at high temperatures.
Henry et al. reviewed studies of the filamentous bacteriophages’ properties, as well as their various applications in research [105]. Filamentous phage can be used to display polypeptides as fusion proteins with the major coat protein pVIII. In addition, each phage can display more than 2500 copies of pVIII, making it a good way to present peptides to the immune system. Phage-based vaccines are easy to develop and do not require expensive equipment, so they may be a useful tool for studying emerging and re-emerging pathogens in developing countries.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the antibody repertoire of recovering patients and the epitopes they recognized should be considered as a scientific priority for the development of therapeutic and prophylactic antibodies and vaccines against emerging pathogens. Several tools can be taken advantage of that can help us improve their efficacy and reduce their production costs, such as phage display, antibody engineering, and prokaryotic protein expression.

Funding

None to declare.

Conflicts of Interest

None to declare.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to David Wade for taking the time to read and revise the manuscript. Also, special thanks to the useful comments from the editor and reviewers at GERMS.

Ethics Approval

Not required.

References

  1. Morse, S.S. Factors in the emergence of infectious diseases. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 1995, 1, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard. 2021. Available online: https://covid19.who.int/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxYXludnP6gIVVIXVCh1zuQ8iEAAYASAAEgK00fD_BwE (accessed on 23 April 2021).
  3. Antibody Society. COVID-19 Biologics Tracker-Clinical Studies Evaluating Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibodies. 2021. Available online: https://www.antibodysociety.org/covid-19-biologics-tracker/ (accessed on 19 April 2021).
  4. Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society. COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker. 2021. Available online: https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2020/3/covid-19-vaccine-tracker (accessed on 19 April 2021).
  5. Woolhouse, M.E.J.; Howey, R.; Gaunt, E.; Reilly, L.; Chase-Topping, M.; Savill, N. Temporal trends in the discovery of human viruses. Proc. R. Soc. Biol. Sci. 2008, 275, 2111–2115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Allander, T.; Tammi, M.T.; Eriksson, M.; Bjerkner, A.; Tiveljung-Lindell, A.; Andersson, B. Cloning of a human parvovirus by molecular screening of respiratory tract samples. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 12891–12896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Woo, P.C.Y.; Lau, S.K.P.; Chu, C.-M.; Chan, K.-H.; Tsoi, H.-W.; Huang, Y.I.; Wong, B.H.L.; Poon, R.W.S.; Cai, J.J.; Luk, W.-K.; et al. Characterization and complete genome sequence of a novel coronavirus, coronavirus HKU1, from patients with pneumonia. J. Virol. 2005, 79, 884–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Calattini, S.; Chevalier, S.A.; Duprez, R.; Bassot, S.; Froment, A.; Mahieux, R.; Gessain, A. Discovery of a new human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV-3) in Central Africa. Retrovirology 2005, 2, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wolfe, N.D.; Heneine, W.; Carr, J.K.; Garcia, A.D.; Shanmugam, V.; Tamoufe, U.; Torimiro, J.N.; Prosser, A.T.; LeBreton, M.; Mpoudi-Ngole, E.; et al. Emergence of unique primate T-lymphotropic viruses among central African bushmeat hunters. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 7994–7999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Van der Hoek, L.; Pyrc, K.; Berkhout, B. Human coronavirus NL63, a new respiratory virus. Fems Microbiol. Rev. 2006, 30, 760–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Rota, P.A.; Oberste, M.S.; Monroe, S.S.; Nix, W.A.; Campagnoli, R.; Icenogle, J.P.; Peñaranda, S.; Bankamp, B.; Maher, K.; Chen, M.-H.; et al. Characterization of a novel coronavirus associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome. Science. 2003, 300, 1394–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hamelin, M.; Abed, Y.; Boivin, G. Human metapneumovirus: A new player among respiratory viruses. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2004, 38, 983–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zaki, A.M.; Van Boheemen, S.; Bestebroer, T.M.; Osterhaus, A.D.M.E.; Fouchier, R.A.M. Isolation of a novel coronavirus from a man with pneumonia in Saudi Arabia. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367, 1814–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yu, X.-J.; Liang, M.-F.; Zhang, S.-Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, J.-D.; Sun, Y.-L.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Q.-F.; Popov, V.L.; Li, C.; et al. Fever with thrombocytopenia associated with a novel bunyavirus in China. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011, 364, 1523–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, G.; Nie, S.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Z. Longitudinal change of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibodies in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. J. Infect. Dis. 2020, 222, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zohar, T.; Loos, C.; Fischinger, S.; Atyeo, C.; Wang, C.; Slein, M.D.; Burke, J.; Yu, J.; Feldman, J.; Hauser, B.M.; et al. Compromised humoral functional evolution tracks with SARS-CoV-2 mortality. Cell 2020, 183, 1508–1519.e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Van Griensven, J.; Edwards, T.; De Lamballerie, X.; Semple, M.G.; Gallian, P.; Baize, S.; Horby, P.W.; Raoul, H.; Magassouba, N. ’f.; Antierens, A.; et al. Evaluation of convalescent plasma for ebola virus disease in Guinea. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 374, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. The United States Food and Drug Administration. FDA Issues Emergency Use Authorization for Convalescent Plasma as Potential Promising COVID-19 Treatment, Another Achievement in Administration’s Fight Against Pandemic. 2020. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-issues-emergency-use-authorization-convalescent-plasma-potential-promising-covid-19-treatment (accessed on 14 April 2021).
  19. Agarwal, A.; Mukherjee, A.; Kumar, G.; Chatterjee, P.; Bhatnagar, T.; Malhotra, P. Convalescent plasma in the management of moderate COVID-19 in adults in India: Open label phase II multicentre randomised controlled trial (PLACID Trial). BMJ 2020, 371, m3939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Simonovich, V.A.; Pratx, L.D.B.; Scibona, P.; Beruto, M.V.; Vallone, M.G.; Vázquez, C.; Savoy, N.; Giunta, D.H.; Pérez, L.G.; Sánchez, M. del L.; et al. A randomized trial of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 severe pneumonia. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 619–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Libster, R.; Marc, G.P.; Wappner, D.; Coviello, S.; Bianchi, A.; Braem, V.; Esteban, I.; Caballero, M.T.; Wood, C.; Berrueta, M.; et al. Early high-titer plasma therapy to prevent severe COVID-19 in older adults. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 610–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Salazar, E.; Christensen, P.A.; Graviss, E.A.; Nguyen, D.T.; Castillo, B.; Chen, J.; Lopez, B.V.; Eagar, T.N.; Yi, X.; Zhao, P.; et al. Significantly decreased mortality in a large cohort of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients transfused early with convalescent plasma containing high-titer anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein IgG. Am. J. Pathol. 2021, 191, 90–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shenoy, A.G.; Hettinger, A.Z.; Fernandez, S.J.; Blumenthal, J.; Baez, V. Early mortality benefit with COVID-19 convalescent plasma: A matched control study. Br. J. Haematol. 2021, 192, 706–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Alsharidah, S.; Ayed, M.; Ameen, R.M.; Alhuraish, F.; Rouheldeen, N.A.; Alshammari, F.R.; Embaireeg, A.; Almelahi, M.; Adel, M.; Dawoud, M.E.; et al. COVID-19 convalescent plasma treatment of moderate and severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A multicenter interventional study. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 103, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rogers, R.; Shehadeh, F.; Mylona, E.K.; Rich, J.; Neill, M.; Touzard-Romo, F.; Geffert, S.; Larkin, J.; Bailey, J.A.; Lu, S.; et al. Convalescent plasma for patients with severe COVID-19: A matched cohort study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 73, e208–e214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Joyner, M.J.; Carter, R.E.; Senefeld, J.W.; Klassen, S.A.; Mills, J.R.; Johnson, P.W.; Theel, E.S.; Wiggins, C.C.; Bruno, K.A.; Klompas, A.M.; et al. Convalescent plasma antibody levels and the risk of death from COVID-19. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 1015–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Clark, E.; Guilpain, P.; Filip, I.L.; Pansu, N.; Bihan, C.L.; Cartron, G.; Tchernonog, E.; Roubille, C.; Morquin, D.; Makinson, A.; et al. Convalescent plasma for persisting COVID-19 following therapeutic lymphocyte depletion: A report of rapid recovery. Br. J. Haematol. 2020, 190, E154–E156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ferrari, S.; Caprioli, C.; Weber, A.; Rambaldi, A.; Lussana, F. Convalescent hyperimmune plasma for chemo-immunotherapy induced immunodeficiency in COVID-19 patients with hematological malignancies. Leuk. Lymphoma. 2021, 62, 1490–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. The United States Food and Drug Administration. Clinical Memorandum—COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/media/141480/download (accessed on 14 April 2021).
  30. Gasparyan, A.Y.; Misra, D.P.; Yessirkepov, M.; Zimba, O. Perspectives of immune therapy in coronavirus disease 2019. J Korean Med. Sci. 2020, 35, e176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Jawhara, S. Could intravenous immunoglobulin collected from recovered coronavirus patients protect against COVID-19 and strengthen the immune system of new patients? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ju, B.; Zhang, Q.I.; Ge, J.; Wang, R.; Sun, J.; Ge, X.; Yu, J.; Shan, S.; Zhou, B.; Song, S.; et al. Human neutralizing antibodies elicited by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nature 2020, 584, 115–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jin, J.; Simmons, G. Antiviral functions of monoclonal antibodies against chikungunya virus. Viruses 2019, 11, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Weaver, S.C.; Charlier, C.; Vasilakis, N.; Lecuit, M. Zika, chikungunya, and other emerging vector-borne viral diseases. Annu. Rev. Med. 2018, 69, 395–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Corti, D.; Zhao, J.; Pedotti, M.; Simonelli, L.; Agnihothram, S.; Fett, C.; Fernandez-Rodriguez, B.; Foglierini, M.; Agatic, G.; Vanzetta, F.; et al. Prophylactic and postexposure efficacy of a potent human monoclonal antibody against MERS coronavirus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 10473–10478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. De Wit, E.; Feldmann, F.; Horne, E.; Okumura, A.; Cameroni, E.; Haddock, E.; Saturday, G.; Scott, D.; Gopal, R.; Zambon, M.; et al. Prophylactic efficacy of a human monoclonal antibody against MERS-CoV in the common marmoset. Antivir. Res. 2019, 163, 70–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shi, R.; Shan, C.; Duan, X.; Chen, Z.; Liu, P.; Song, J.; Song, T.; Bi, X.; Han, C.; Wu, L.; et al. A human neutralizing antibody targets the receptor-binding site of SARS-CoV-2. Nature 2020, 584, 120–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Hansen, J.; Baum, A.; Pascal, K.E.; Russo, V.; Giordano, S.; Wloga, E.; Fulton, B.O.; Yan, Y.; Koon, K.; Patel, K.; et al. Studies in humanized mice and convalescent humans yield a SARS-CoV-2 antibody cocktail. Science 2020, 369, 1010–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. European Medicines Agency. EMA Issues Advice on Use of Regdanvimab for Treating COVID-19. 2021. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-issues-advice-use-regdanvimab-treating-covid-19 (accessed on 11 April 2021).
  40. Kim, C.; Ryu, D.-K.; Lee, J.; Kim, Y.-I.; Seo, J.-M.; Kim, Y.-G.; Jeong, J.-H.; Kim, M.; Kim, J.-I.; Kim, P.; et al. A therapeutic neutralizing antibody targeting receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang-Lin, S.X.; Balthasar, J.P. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations for the use of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of bacterial infections. Antibodies 2018, 7, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Beeler, J.A.; Coelingh, K. van W. Neutralization epitopes of the F glycoprotein of respiratory syncytial virus: Effect of mutation upon fusion function. J. Virol. 1989, 63, 2941–2950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lu, R.-M.; Hwang, Y.-C.; Liu, I.-J.; Lee, C.-C.; Tsai, H.-Z.; Li, H.-J.; Wu, H.-C. Development of therapeutic antibodies for the treatment of diseases. J. Biomed. Sci. 2020, 27, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Matson, M.A.; Schenker, E.; Stein, M.; Zamfirova, V.; Nguyen, H.-B.; Bergman, G.E. Safety and efficacy results of simulated post-exposure prophylaxis with human immune globulin (HRIG; KEDRAB) co-administered with active vaccine in healthy subjects: A comparative phase 2/3 trial. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2019, 16, 452–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cole, S.P. Monoclonal antibodies. Can. Fam. Physician. 1987, 33, 369–372. [Google Scholar]
  46. Gross, A.; Schoendube, J.; Zimmermann, S.; Steeb, M.; Zengerle, R.; Koltay, P. Technologies for single-cell isolation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 16897–16919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lushova, A.A.; Biazrova, M.G.; Prilipov, A.G.; Sadykova, G.K.; Kopylov, T.A.; Filatov, A.V. Next-generation techniques for discovering human monoclonal antibodies. Mol. Biol. 2017, 51, 782–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Throsby, M.; Van Den Brink, E.; Jongeneelen, M.; Poon, L.L.M.; Alard, P.; Cornelissen, L.; Bakker, A.; Cox, F.; Van Deventer, E.; Guan, Y.I.; et al. Heterosubtypic neutralizing monoclonal antibodies cross-protective against H5N1 and H1N1 recovered from human IgM+ memory B cells. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e3942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Harvey, B.R.; Georgiou, G.; Hayhurst, A.; Jeong, K.J.; Iverson, B.L.; Rogers, G.K. Anchored periplasmic expression, a versatile technology for the isolation of high-affinity antibodies from Escherichia coli-expressed libraries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 9193–9198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Labrijn, A.F.; Zwick, M.B.; Burton, D.R. Antigen selection from an HIV-1 immune antibody library displayed on yeast yields many novel antibodies compared to selection from the same library displayed on phage. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 2007, 20, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhou, C.; Shen, W.D. Mammalian cell surface display of full length IgG. Methods Mol. Biol. 2012, 907, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Aghebati-Maleki, L.; Bakhshinejad, B.; Baradaran, B.; Motallebnezhad, M.; Aghebati-Maleki, A.; Nickho, H.; Yousefi, M.; Majidi, J. Phage display as a promising approach for vaccine development. J. Biomed. Sci. 2016, 23, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Bakker, A.B.H.; Marissen, W.E.; Kramer, R.A.; Rice, A.B.; Weldon, W.C.; Niezgoda, M.; Hanlon, C.A.; Thijsse, S.; Backus, H.H.J.; De Kruif, J.; et al. Novel human monoclonal antibody combination effectively neutralizing natural rabies virus variants and individual in vitro escape mutants. J. Virol. 2005, 79, 9062–9068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Redman, J.M.; Hill, E.M.; AlDeghaither, D.; Weiner, L.M. Mechanisms of action of therapeutic antibodies for cancer. Mol. Immunol. 2015, 67, 28–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Phage, M. Display identification of immunodominant epitopes and autoantibodies in autoimmune diseases. Curr. Biosci. 2021, 1, e02. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Noy-Porat, T.; Makdasi, E.; Alcalay, R.; Mechaly, A.; Levy, Y.; Bercovich-Kinori, A.; Zauberman, A.; Tamir, H.; Yahalom-Ronen, Y.; Israeli, M. ’a.; et al. A panel of human neutralizing mAbs targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike at multiple epitopes. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wu, Y.; Li, C.; Xia, S.; Tian, X.; Kong, Y.U.; Wang, Z.; Gu, C.; Zhang, R.; Tu, C.; Xie, Y.; et al. Identification of human single-domain antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Cell Host Microbe 2020, 27, 891–898.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Amersdorfer, P.; Wong, C.; Smith, T.; Chen, S.; Deshpande, S.; Sheridan, R.; Marks, J.D. Genetic and immunological comparison of anti-botulinum type A antibodies from immune and non-immune human phage libraries. Vaccine 2002, 20, 1640–1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Trott, M.; Weiß, S.; Antoni, S.; Koch, J.; Von Briesen, H.; Hust, M.; Dietrich, U. Functional characterization of two scFv-Fc antibodies from an HIV controller selected on soluble HIV-1 Env complexes: A neutralizing V3- and a trimer-specific gp41 antibody. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e107089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ekiert, D.C.; Kashyap, A.K.; Steel, J.; Rubrum, A.; Bhabha, G.; Khayat, R.; Lee, J.H.; Dillon, M.A.; O’neil, R.E.; Faynboym, A.M.; et al. Cross-neutralization of influenza A viruses mediated by a single antibody loop. Nature. 2012, 489, 526–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rahumatullah, A.; Karim, I.Z.A.; Noordin, R.; Lim, T.S. Antibody-based protective immunity against helminth infections: Antibody phage display derived antibodies against BmR1 antigen. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 2376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Grubbs, H.; Kahwaji, C.I. Physiology, active immunity. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  63. World Health Organization. Draft Landscape and Tracker of COVID-19 Candidate Vaccines. 2021. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines (accessed on 23 April 2021).
  64. OurWorldinData. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Caccinations. 2021. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations (accessed on 23 April 2021).
  65. Dong, Y.; Dai, T.; Wei, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zheng, M.; Zhou, F. A systematic review of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2020, 5, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Golob, J.L.; Lugogo, N.; Lauring, A.S.; Lok, A.S. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: A triumph of science and collaboration. J. Clin. Investig. 2021, 6, 149187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Krammer, F. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in development. Nature 2020, 586, 516–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Skwarczynski, M.; Toth, I. Peptide-based synthetic vaccines. Chem. Sci. 2015, 7, 842–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zhu, R.; Liu, J.; Chen, C.; Ye, X.; Xu, L.; Wang, W.; Zhao, Q.; Zhu, H.; Cheng, T.; Xia, N. A highly conserved epitope-vaccine candidate against varicella-zoster virus induces neutralizing antibodies in mice. Vaccine. 2016, 34, 1589–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Guo, L.E.; Yin, R.; Liu, K.; Lv, X.; Li, Y.; Duan, X.; Chu, Y.; Xi, T.; Xing, Y. Immunological features and efficacy of a multi-epitope vaccine CTB-UE against H. pylori in BALB/c mice model. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 98, 3495–3507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wang, J.; Liu, M.; Ding, N.; Li, Y.; Shao, J.; Zhu, M.; Xie, Z.; Sun, K. Vaccine based on antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity epitope on the H1N1 influenza virus increases mortality in vaccinated mice. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2018, 503, 1874–1879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Kadam, A.; Sasidharan, S.; Saudagar, P. Computational design of a potential multi-epitope subunit vaccine using immunoinformatics to fight Ebola virus. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2020, 85, 104464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bemani, P.; Amirghofran, Z.; Mohammadi, M. Designing a multi-epitope vaccine against blood-stage of Plasmodium falciparum by in silico approaches. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2020, 99, 107645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Majee, P.; Jain, N.; Kumar, A. Designing of a multi-epitope vaccine candidate against Nipah virus by in silico approach: A putative prophylactic solution for the deadly virus. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 2020, 39, 1461–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Joshi, A.; Kaushik, V. In-Silico Proteomic Exploratory Quest: Crafting T-Cell Epitope Vaccine Against Whipples Disease. Int. J. Pept. Res. Ther. 2020, 27, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nelde, A.; Bilich, T.; Heitmann, J.S.; Maringer, Y.; Salih, H.R.; Roerden, M.; Lübke, M.; Bauer, J.; Rieth, J.; Wacker, M.; et al. SARS-CoV-2-derived peptides define heterologous and COVID-19-induced T cell recognition. Nat. Immunol. 2020, 22, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kar, T.; Narsaria, U.; Basak, S.; Deb, D.; Castiglione, F.; Mueller, D.M.; Srivastava, A.P. A candidate multi-epitope vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nevagi, R.J.; Toth, I.; Skwarczynski, M. Peptide-based vaccines. In Peptide Applications in Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Bioengineering; Koutsopoulos, S., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 327–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Slingluff, C.L., Jr.; Petroni, G.R.; Chianese-Bullock, K.A.; Wages, N.A.; Olson, W.C.; Smith, K.T.; Haden, K.; Dengel, L.T.; Dickinson, A.; Reed, C.; et al. Trial to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of a melanoma helper peptide vaccine plus incomplete Freunds adjuvant, cyclophosphamide, and polyICLC (Mel63). J. Immunother. Cancer 2021, 9, e000934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Li, W.; Joshi, M.D.; Singhania, S.; Ramsey, K.H.; Murthy, A.K. Peptide vaccine: Progress and challenges. Vaccines 2014, 2, 515–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kaumaya, P.T. B-cell epitope peptide cancer vaccines: A new paradigm for combination immunotherapies with novel checkpoint peptide vaccine. Future Oncol. 2020, 16, 1767–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Di Natale, C.; La Manna, S.; De Benedictis, I.; Brandi, P.; Marasco, D. Perspectives in peptide-based vaccination strategies for syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 578382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Walter, S.; Weinschenk, T.; Stenzl, A.; Zdrojowy, R.; Pluzanska, A.; Szczylik, C.; Staehler, M.; Brugger, W.; Dietrich, P.-Y.; Mendrzyk, R.; et al. Multipeptide immune response to cancer vaccine IMA901 after single-dose cyclophosphamide associates with longer patient survival. Nat. Med. 2012, 18, 1254–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rini, B.I.; Stenzl, A.; Zdrojowy, R.; Kogan, M.; Shkolnik, M.; Oudard, S.; Weikert, S.; Bracarda, S.; Crabb, S.J.; Bedke, J.; et al. IMA901, a multipeptide cancer vaccine, plus sunitinib versus sunitinib alone, as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (IMPRINT): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 1599–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Moynihan, J.S.; Blair, J.; Coombes, A.; D’mEllo, F.; Howard, C.R. Enhanced immunogenicity of a hepatitis B virus peptide vaccine using oligosaccharide ester derivative microparticles. Vaccine 2002, 20, 1870–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Rohovie, M.J.; Nagasawa, M.; Swartz, J.R. Virus-like particles: Next-generation nanoparticles for targeted therapeutic delivery. Bioeng. Transl. Med. 2017, 2, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Roehnisch, T.; Then, C.; Nagel, W.; Blumenthal, C.; Braciak, T.; Donzeau, M.; Böhm, T.; Flaig, M.; Bourquin, C.; Oduncu, F.S. Phage idiotype vaccination: First phase I/II clinical trial in patients with multiple myeloma. J. Transl. Med. 2014, 12, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Greenwood, J.; Willis, A.E.; Perham, R.N. Multiple display of foreign peptides on a filamentous bacteriophage. J. Mol. Biol. 1991, 220, 821–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Sunderland, K.S.; Yang, M.; Mao, C. Phage-enabled nanomedicine: From probes to therapeutics in precision medicine. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2016, 56, 1964–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Enshell-Seijffers, D.; Denisov, D.; Groisman, B.; Smelyanski, L.; Meyuhas, R.; Gross, G.; Denisova, G.; Gershoni, J.M. The mapping and reconstitution of a conformational discontinuous B-cell epitope of HIV-1. J. Mol. Biol. 2003, 334, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Oleksiewicz, M.B.; Bøtner, A.; Toft, P.; Normann, P.; Storgaard, T. Epitope mapping porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus by phage display: The nsp2 fragment of the replicase polyprotein contains a cluster of B-cell epitopes. J. Virol. 2001, 75, 3277–3290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Yu, H.; Jiang, L.-F.; Fang, D.-Y.; Yan, H.-J.; Zhou, J.-J.; Zhou, J.-M.; Liang, Y.U.; Gao, Y.; Zhao, W.; Long, B.-G. Selection of SARS-coronavirus-specific B cell epitopes by phage peptide library screening and evaluation of the immunological effect of epitope-based peptides on mice. Virology. 2007, 359, 264–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zamecnik, C.R.; Rajan, J.V.; Yamauchi, K.A.; Mann, S.A.; Sowa, G.M.; Zorn, K.C.; Alvarenga, B.D.; Stone, M.; Norris, P.J.; Gu, W.; et al. ReScan, a multiplex diagnostic pipeline, pans human sera for SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Cell Rep. Med. 2020, 1, 100123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. DeFrancesco, L. COVID-19 antibodies on trial. Nat. Biotechnol. 2020, 39, 1242–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Both, L.; Banyard, A.C.; Van Dolleweerd, C.; Wright, E.; Ma, J.K.-C.; Fooks, A.R. Monoclonal antibodies for prophylactic and therapeutic use against viral infections. Vaccine 2013, 31, 1553–1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Lebozec, K.; Jandrot-Perrus, M.; Avenard, G.; Favre-Bulle, O.; Billiald, P. Quality and cost assessment of a recombinant antibody fragment produced from mammalian, yeast and prokaryotic host cells: A case study prior to pharmaceutical development. New Biotechnol. 2018, 44, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Deeks, E.D. Certolizumab pegol: A review in inflammatory autoimmune diseases. BioDrugs 2016, 30, 607–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Lien, S.; Lowman, H.B. Therapeutic anti-VEGF antibodies. In Therapeutic antibodies. Handbook of experimental pharmacology; Chernajovsky, Y., Nissim, A., Eds.; Springer Nature: Berlin, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Bournazos, S.; Ravetch, J.V. Anti-retroviral antibody FcγR-mediated effector functions. Immunol. Rev. 2017, 275, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Nordin, M.A.C.; Teow, S.-Y. Review of current cell-penetrating antibody developments for HIV-1 therapy. Molecules 2018, 23, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Wang, D.; Tai, P.W.L.; Gao, G. Adeno-associated virus vector as a platform for gene therapy delivery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2019, 18, 358–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Panyam, J.; Labhasetwar, V. Biodegradable nanoparticles for drug and gene delivery to cells and tissue. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2003, 55, 329–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lü, J.-M.; Wang, X.; Marin-Muller, C.; Wang, H.; Lin, P.H.; Yao, Q.; Chen, C. Current advances in research and clinical applications of PLGA-based nanotechnology. Expert. Rev. Mol. Diagn. 2009, 9, 325–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Wang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Luo, J.; Han, X.; Wei, Y.; Wei, X. MRNA vaccine: A potential therapeutic strategy. Mol. Cancer 2021, 20, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Henry, K.A.; Arbabi-Ghahroudi, M.; Scott, J.K. Beyond phage display: Non-traditional applications of the filamentous bacteriophage as a vaccine carrier, therapeutic biologic, and bioconjugation scaffold. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Antibody Society. Antibody Therapeutics Approved or in Regulatory Review in the EU or US. 2021. Available online: https://www.antibodysociety.org/resources/approved-antibodies/ (accessed on 22 April 2021).
Germs 11 00287 g001
Figure 1. Flow diagram showing study inclusion and exclusion.
Figure 1. Flow diagram showing study inclusion and exclusion.
Germs 11 00287 g001
Germs 11 00287 g002
Figure 2. Trends in clinical trials registration of therapeutic antibodies during the last ten years. The closed circles with a solid trend line represent the number of clinical trials with therapeutic antibodies for all types of diseases registered each year for the last ten years at ClinicalTrials.gov. The open circles with a dashed trend line represent the number of clinical trials with therapeutic antibodies for infectious diseases registered each year for the last ten years at ClinicalTrials.gov.
Figure 2. Trends in clinical trials registration of therapeutic antibodies during the last ten years. The closed circles with a solid trend line represent the number of clinical trials with therapeutic antibodies for all types of diseases registered each year for the last ten years at ClinicalTrials.gov. The open circles with a dashed trend line represent the number of clinical trials with therapeutic antibodies for infectious diseases registered each year for the last ten years at ClinicalTrials.gov.
Germs 11 00287 g002
Table 1. Pathogen-specific antibodies for treatment of infectious diseases registered during 2020 at ClinicalTrials.gov.
Table 1. Pathogen-specific antibodies for treatment of infectious diseases registered during 2020 at ClinicalTrials.gov.
AntibodyTargetPathogenPhasesNCT Number
3BNC117-LSCD4 binding site on the HIV-1 envelopeHIVI, IINCT04250636, NCT04319367
10-1074-LSV3 glycan supersite on the HIV-1 envelope proteinHIV NCT04250636, NCT04319367
PGT121.414.LS, VRC07-523LSCD4 binding site of the HIV-1 envelopeHIVINCT04212091
Herpevizumab (HDIT101)Epitope on HSV-1/2
glycoprotein B (gB)		HSV-1IINCT04539483
SAR440894E2 envelope protein of chikungunya virusChikungunya virusINCT04441905
MAU868Viral capsid protein, VP1BK virusIINCT04294472
SYN023 (CTB011 + CTB012)Non-overlapping epitopes on the rabies virus (RABV) glycoprotein (G)Rabies virusIIINCT04644484
AV-1West Nile virus E proteinDengueINCT04273217
Antibodies against Pseudomonas from patients’ B lymphocytesPseudomonasPseudomonas aeruginosa NCT04335383
BezlotoxumabToxin BClostridioides difficileIINCT03829475
SCTA01S proteinSARS-CoV-2INCT04483375
REGN10933+REG N10987S proteinSARS-CoV-2I, II, IIINCT04519437, NCT04426695,
NCT04425629, NCT04452318
TY027S proteinSARS-CoV-2I, IIINCT04429529, NCT04649515
JS016S proteinSARS-CoV-2INCT04441918
DZIF-10c (BI767551)From recovered COVID-19 patientsSARS-CoV-2I, IINCT04631705
DZIF-10cFrom recovered COVID-19 patientsSARS-CoV-2I, IINCT04631666
VIR-7831From patient recovered from SARS in 2003SARS-CoV-2II, IIINCT04545060
CIS43LSCircumsporozoite protein (PfCSP)MalariaINCT04206332
TB31FPfs48/45MalariaINCT04238689
Table 2. Therapeutic antibodies specific for human proteins for treatment of infectious diseases registered during 2020 at ClinicalTrials.gov.
Table 2. Therapeutic antibodies specific for human proteins for treatment of infectious diseases registered during 2020 at ClinicalTrials.gov.
AntibodyTargetPathogenPhasesNCT Number
UB-421CD4HIVIINCT03164447, NCT04404049, NCT03743376
Garadacimab (CSL312)Factor XII/XIIaSARS-CoV-2IINCT04409509
Mavrilimumab (KPL-301, CAM3001)GM-CSF αSARS-CoV-2II, IIINCT04447469
MavrilimumabGM-CSF αSARS-CoV-2IINCT04397497
LeronlimabCCR5SARS-CoV-2IINCT04343651, NCT04347239
TJ003234Granulocyte-monocyte stimulating factor (GM-CSF)SARS-CoV-2II, IIINCT04341116
LenzilumabGM-CSFSARS-CoV-2IIINCT04351152
RavulizumabComplement component C5SARS-CoV-2IIINCT04369469
CPI-006CD73 cell-surface ectonucleotidaseSARS-CoV-2INCT04464395
CrizanlizumabP-selectinSARS-CoV-2IINCT04435184
REGN-COV2,
Tocilizumab		IL-6SARS-CoV-2II, IIINCT04381936
GimsilumabGranulocyte-monocyte stimulating factor (GM-CSF)SARS-CoV-2IINCT04351243
PamrevlumabConnective tissue growth factor (CTGF)SARS-CoV-2IINCT04432298
CanakinumabIL-1βSARS-CoV-2 NCT04348448
TocilizumabIL6SARS-CoV-2IVNCT04377750

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Palma, M. Perspectives on Passive Antibody Therapy and Peptide-Based Vaccines Against Emerging Pathogens Like SARS-CoV-2. GERMS 2021, 11, 287-305. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2021.1264

AMA Style

Palma M. Perspectives on Passive Antibody Therapy and Peptide-Based Vaccines Against Emerging Pathogens Like SARS-CoV-2. GERMS. 2021; 11(2):287-305. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2021.1264

Chicago/Turabian Style

Palma, Marco. 2021. "Perspectives on Passive Antibody Therapy and Peptide-Based Vaccines Against Emerging Pathogens Like SARS-CoV-2" GERMS 11, no. 2: 287-305. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2021.1264

APA Style

Palma, M. (2021). Perspectives on Passive Antibody Therapy and Peptide-Based Vaccines Against Emerging Pathogens Like SARS-CoV-2. GERMS, 11(2), 287-305. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2021.1264

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop