We had expected greater mucosal responses at the highest doses administered here. Even at 1010 CFU, we only detected soluble IgA directed against sonicated L. monocytogenes via the ALS assay; no convincing IgA ELISpot responses were seen. Serum IgA titers directed against the vector were significantly increased overall, although the significance of this finding is uncertain. IgA ELISpots were the best correlates of luminal intestinal (fecal) antibody in earlier assessments of live attenuated Salmonella vaccines where Sorafenib concentration this was carefully studied (37). Systemic humoral immune responses to vector and the foreign antigen were not detected. Although antibodies may play some role

in protection against listeriosis (38), in general, listerial vectors are engineered and studied with the goal of stimulating cellular immunity. All of our volunteers had high baseline antibody titers directed against the nucleoprotein antigen, likely a result of prior influenza infection, which did not change over time. We were somewhat encouraged by an overall statistically significant

increase in IFN-γ spot-forming cells responsive to the complex listerial sonicate antigen, if not the listeriolysin peptides, nor the nucleoprotein antigen as shown graphically in Figure 7. In our and others hands, the listeriolysin peptide pool engendered strong ELISpot responses in mice inoculated parenterally with L. monocytogenes expressing listeriolysin. It was expected that these LLO peptides would be strong, sensitive and specific BAY 80-6946 cell line test peptides in humans, which proved to be incorrect. Our data suggest that humans may preferentially respond to other listerial antigens. We had hoped that existing and measureable IFN-γ ELISpot immune responses to influenza nucleoprotein peptides would be “boosted” by presentation of the nucleoprotein by a live listerial vector, but this could

not be demonstrated. Based upon our ELISpot and ELISA data, virtually all volunteers had strong existing immune responses to the nucleoprotein. In retrospect, Edoxaban perhaps an antigen to which humans are naïve might have presented a lower bar with which to evaluate these vectors. It is possible that we might have detected greater cellular responses to both vector and heterologous antigens by using more sophisticated T-cell studies with re-stimulation in vitro, but we doubt such results would be clinically meaningful. In summary, oral administration of these two vaccine organisms resulted in modest mucosal and cellular immune responses to a complex listerial antigen, but not to a secreted viral foreign antigen. The strains were comparable, immunologically. In our prior study, there were more robust mucosal and humoral immune responses to both sonicated L. monocytogenes and LLO in subjects receiving 109 CFU of the BMB72 parental strain orally. We had hoped that higher doses and improved peptide reagents would allow us to detect cellular responses, but this was not the case.