What does it mean to develop an HIV vaccine by rational design?

Abstract

This review argues that the three popular concepts of design, rationality and reductionism, which guided vaccine research for many years, actually contributed to the inability of vaccinologists to develop an effective HIV vaccine. The strong goal-directed intentionality inherent in the concept of design together with excessive confidence in the power of rational thinking convinced investigators that the accumulated structural knowledge on HIV epitopes, derived from crystallographic studies of complexes of neutralizing antibodies bound to HIV Env epitopes, would allow them to rationally design complementary immunogens capable of inducing anti-HIV protective antibodies. This strategy failed because it was not appreciated that the structures observed in epitope-paratope crystallographic complexes result from mutually induced fit between the two partners and do not represent structures present in the free disordered molecules before they had interacted. In addition, reductionist thinking led investigators to accept that biology could be reduced to chemistry, and this made them neglect the fundamental difference between chemical antigenicity and biological immunogenicity. As a result, they did not investigate which inherent constituents of immune systems controlled the induction of protective antibodies and focused instead only on the steric complementarity that exists between bound epitopes and paratopes.