Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 11, 2026

Conformational Evaluation of HIV-1 Trimeric Envelope Glycoproteins Using a Cell-based ELISA Assay
Published on: September 14, 2014
Effects of Adjuvants on HIV-1 Envelope Glycoprotein SOSIP Trimers In Vitro
Gabriel Ozorowski1, Albert Cupo2, Michael Golabek2
1Department of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology, Center for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Immunology and Immunogen Discovery, International AIDS Vaccine Initiative Neutralizing Antibody Center, and Collaboration for AIDS Vaccine Discovery, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California, USA.
Native-like, soluble, recombinant SOSIP trimers of various designs and based on several env genes of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) are being tested as immunogens in different animal models. These experiments almost always involve coformulating the trimers with an adjuvant to boost the magnitude of the immune responses. One factor relevant to the choice of an adjuvant is that it should not physically damage the immunogen or impede its ability to present relevant epitopes. As examples, an adjuvant formulation that includes harsh detergents could disrupt the structural integrity of a trimer, and any charged compounds in the formulation could bind to countercharged regions of the trimer and physically occlude nearby epitopes. While a few adjuvants have been tested for their potential effects on SOSIP trimers in vitro, there has been no systematic study. Here, we have assessed how nine different adjuvants of various compositions affect SOSIP trimers of the BG505 and B41 genotypes. We used negative-stain electron microscopy, thermal denaturation, and gel electrophoresis to evaluate effects on trimer integrity and immunoassays to measure effects on the presentation of various epitopes. We conclude that most of the tested adjuvants are benign from these perspectives, but some raise grounds for concern. An acidified alum formulation is highly disruptive to trimer integrity, and a DNA-based polyanionic CpG oligodeoxynucleotide adjuvant binds to trimers and occludes the trimer apex epitope for the PGT145 neutralizing antibody. The methods described here should be generalizable to protein subunit vaccines targeting various pathogens.IMPORTANCE Adjuvant formulations increase the magnitude of immune responses to vaccine antigens. They are critically important for formulation of HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein (Env) vaccines intended to induce antibody production, as Env proteins are otherwise only very weakly immunogenic. The HIV-1 vaccine field now uses the well-defined structures of trimeric Env glycoproteins, like SOSIPs, to present multiple known epitopes for broad and potent neutralizing human antibodies in a native-like conformation. Successful adjuvant formulations must not disrupt how the trimers are folded, as that could adversely affect their performance as immunogens. We studied whether the various adjuvants most commonly used in animal experiments affect the integrity of two different SOSIP trimers in vitro Most adjuvant classes are not problematic, but an aluminum sulfate formulation is highly damaging, as it exposes trimers to acidic pH and a nucleic acid-based adjuvant can bind to the trimer and block access to a key neutralizing epitope.
Native-like, soluble, recombinant SOSIP trimers of various designs and based on several env genes of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) are being tested as immunogens in different animal models. These experiments almost always involve coformulating the trimers with an adjuvant to boost the magnitude of the immune responses. One factor relevant to the choice of an adjuvant is that it should not physically damage the immunogen or impede its ability to present relevant epitopes. As examples, an adjuvant formulation that includes harsh detergents could disrupt the structural integrity of a trimer, and any charged compounds in the formulation could bind to countercharged regions of the trimer and physically occlude nearby epitopes. While a few adjuvants have been tested for their potential effects on SOSIP trimers in vitro, there has been no systematic study. Here, we have assessed how nine different adjuvants of various compositions affect SOSIP trimers of the BG505 and B41 genotypes. We used negative-stain electron microscopy, thermal denaturation, and gel electrophoresis to evaluate effects on trimer integrity and immunoassays to measure effects on the presentation of various epitopes. We conclude that most of the tested adjuvants are benign from these perspectives, but some raise grounds for concern. An acidified alum formulation is highly disruptive to trimer integrity, and a DNA-based polyanionic CpG oligodeoxynucleotide adjuvant binds to trimers and occludes the trimer apex epitope for the PGT145 neutralizing antibody. The methods described here should be generalizable to protein subunit vaccines targeting various pathogens.IMPORTANCE Adjuvant formulations increase the magnitude of immune responses to vaccine antigens. They are critically important for formulation of HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein (Env) vaccines intended to induce antibody production, as Env proteins are otherwise only very weakly immunogenic. The HIV-1 vaccine field now uses the well-defined structures of trimeric Env glycoproteins, like SOSIPs, to present multiple known epitopes for broad and potent neutralizing human antibodies in a native-like conformation. Successful adjuvant formulations must not disrupt how the trimers are folded, as that could adversely affect their performance as immunogens. We studied whether the various adjuvants most commonly used in animal experiments affect the integrity of two different SOSIP trimers in vitro Most adjuvant classes are not problematic, but an aluminum sulfate formulation is highly damaging, as it exposes trimers to acidic pH and a nucleic acid-based adjuvant can bind to the trimer and block access to a key neutralizing epitope.
Related Concept Videos
Outer Layers of the Cell Envelope
Matrix Proteoglycans and Glycoproteins
Buffer Effectiveness
The buffer capacity is the amount of acid or base that can be added to a given volume...
Framing Effects
SN1 Reaction: Stereochemistry
In the first step of an SN1 reaction, the bond between the electrophilic carbon and the leaving group ionizes to generate the carbocation intermediate. The second step of the mechanism is the nucleophilic attack.
In the formed carbocation, the positively charged carbon is sp2 hybridized with a trigonal planar geometry. As all the three substituents lie on the same plane, a plane of symmetry for the...
SN1 Reaction: Kinetics
However, Sir Christopher Ingold and Edward D. Hughes, who studied the kinetics of various nucleophilic substitution reactions, noticed that a tertiary alkyl halide does undergo a nucleophilic substitution reaction in the presence of a weak nucleophile. While studying the substitution...

