%0 Journal Article %A Davidson, Emma J. %A Sehr, Peter %A Faulkner, Rebecca L. %A Parish, Joanna L. %A Gaston, Kevin %A Moore, Richard A. %A Pawlita, Michael %A Kitchener, Henry C. %A Stern, Peter L. %T Human papillomavirus type 16 E2- and L1-specific serological and T-cell responses in women with vulval intraepithelial neoplasia %D 2003 %J Journal of General Virology, %V 84 %N 8 %P 2089-2097 %@ 1465-2099 %R https://doi.org/10.1099/vir.0.19095-0 %I Microbiology Society, %X Human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV-16)-associated vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is frequently a chronic, multifocal high-grade condition with an appreciable risk of progression to vulval cancer. The requirement to treat women with VIN has recently stimulated the use of immunotherapy with E6/E7 oncogene vaccines. Animal models have shown that E2 may also be a useful vaccine target for HPV-associated disease; however, little is known about E2 immunity in humans. This study investigated the prevalence of HPV-16 E2-specific serological and T-cell responses in 18 women with HPV-16-associated VIN and 17 healthy volunteers. E2 responses were determined by full-length E2–GST ELISA with ELISPOT and proliferation assays using E2 C-terminal protein. As positive controls, HPV-16 L1 responses were measured using virus-like particles (VLPs) and L1–GST ELISA with ELISPOT and proliferation using VLPs as antigen. The VIN patients all showed a strong serological response to L1 compared with the healthy volunteers by VLP (15/18 vs 1/17, P<0·001) and L1–GST ELISA (18/18 vs 1/17, P<0·001). In contrast, L1-specific cellular immune responses were detected in a significant proportion of controls but were more prevalent in the VIN patients by proliferation assay (9/17 vs 17/18, P<0·02) and interferon-γ ELISPOT (9/17 vs 13/18, P=not significant). Similar and low numbers of patients and controls were seropositive for E2-specific Ig (2/18 vs 1/17). In spite of previous studies showing the immunogenicity of E2 in eliciting primary T-cell responses in vitro, there was a low prevalence of E2 responses in the VIN patients and controls (2/18 vs 0/17). %U https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/vir.0.19095-0