You will be shown a paragraph from a biomedical research paper, followed by a question about the paper. Please extract text from the paragraph to answer the question. Do not include any text in your repsonse other than the answer.

Paragraph: Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen. 

In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice without any immunological memory against the vector. Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 . The various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) . A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 . Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic 

Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization, the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated. Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced. It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) . Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1. Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens. Protective cross-reactive immunity against Salmonella strains has been demonstrated against both homologous and heterologous challenges (Beal et al., 2006) , although cross-serogroup protection was not strong. Furthermore, a recent study reported that pretreatment of newly hatched chickens with different Salmonella strains could produce a complete invasioninhibition effect on any subsequent exposure to both homologous and heterologous strains (Methner et al., 2010) . Pre-exposure with a highly invasive form of Salmonella Enteritidis caused a large influx of heterophils to the caecal mucosa in 1-day-old chicks, and subsequent heterologous caecal colonization was inhibited for a period of 48 h (Methner et al., 2010) . The implications of this kind of colonization-inhibition study on the immunological status of the affected chickens are yet to be fully elucidated. It should be noted that the studies listed in Tables 1 and 2 are controlled laboratory studies, with the possibility of a competitive exclusion component to immunity not discussed. Similarly studies of L. monocytogenes and the effects of preexisting immune responses indicate conflicting results. A study by Bouwer et al. (1999) indicates that pre-existing immune responses against the Listeria vector do not diminish immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen, and a similar study by Starks et al. (2004) also concluded that prior exposure of mice to the empty Listeria vector did not influence anti-cancer immune responses when a similar mutant was used as a carrier of a melanoma cancer antigen. Similar findings were reported by Whitney et al. (2011) in rhesus macaques in which L. monocytyogens was used as a carrier of gag-HIV antigen. Conversely, studies by Stevens et al. (2005) in which L. monocytogens was used to deliver feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) gag protein and as a carrier of DNA vaccines to vaccinate cats against FIV envelope protein indicated lower immune responses against the delivered antigen in cats exposed to empty Listeria vector in comparison with naive animals (Stevens et al., 2005) . Similar findings have been reported by Tvinnereim et al. (2002) and Leong et al. (2009) . However, taken together, these studies conclude that prior exposure of host animals to empty vector does not abrogate immune responses to the vectored antigen, but only reduces them somewhat. Only the study by Vijh et al. (1999) indicated that exposure to the empty vector may completely abrogate immune responses against the delivered antigens (Vijh et al., 1999) . However, these studies also indicate that downregulation of antigenspecific immune responses is highly dependent on dose and time. Leong et al. (2009) also demonstrated that the negative impact of vector-specific immune responses can also be countered by repeated immunization with the same vaccine and dose; this in effect leads to higher priming of naive T cells against the delivered antigen. Of course, such repeated vaccination may not be practicable in real-world situations. Despite the many advantages which viral vectoring can offer, pre-existing immunity is a major obstacle of many viralvectored vaccines, such as Ad serotype 5 or herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), where the rate of seroprevalence to these viruses is very high [40-45 % and 70 % (or more) of the US population, respectively] (Hocknell et al., 2002; Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009) . Vector-specific antibodies may impede the induction of immune responses to the vaccine-encoded antigens, as they may reduce the dose and time of exposure of the target cells to the vaccinated antigens (Pichla-Gollon et al., 2009; Pine et al., 2011) . In a large-scale clinical trial (STEP) of an Ad serotype 5 (AdHu5)-based HIV-1 vaccine, the vaccines showed a lack of efficacy and tended to increase the risk of HIV-1 infection in vaccine recipients who had pre-existing neutralizing antibodies to AdHu5 (Buchbinder et al., 2008) . For an HSV-1-based vector vaccine, it has been demonstrated that pre-existing anti-HSV-1 immunity reduced, but did not abolish, humoral and cellular immune responses against the vaccine-encoded antigen (Hocknell et al., 2002; Lauterbach et al., 2005) . However, Brockman and Knipe found that the induction of durable antibody responses and cellular proliferative responses to HSVencoded antigen were not affected by prior HSV immunity (Brockman & Knipe, 2002) . Similarly, pre-existing immunity to poliovirus has little effect on vaccine efficacy in a poliovirus-vectored vaccine (Mandl et al., 2001) . Different effects of pre-existing immunity on the efficacy of recombinant viral vaccine vectors are summarized in Table 2 . There are several approaches to avoiding pre-existing vector immunity, such as the use of vectors derived from nonhuman sources, using human viruses of rare serotypes (Kahl et al., 2010; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009) , heterologous prime-boost approaches (Liu et al., 2008) , homologous reimmunization (Steffensen et al., 2012) and removing key neutralizing epitopes on the surface of viral capsid proteins (Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Roberts et al., 2006) . The inhibitory effect of pre-existing immunity can also be avoided by masking the Ad vector inside dendritic cells (DCs) (Steffensen et al., 2012) . In addition, mucosal vaccination or administration of higher vaccine doses can overcome pre-existing immunity problems (Alexander et al., 2012; Belyakov et al., 1999; Priddy et al., 2008; Xiang et al., 2003) .

Question: What is the effect of host immune response to the delivery vector on the efficacy of vaccination?
for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen.