Gut Microbes May Help Determine Our Immune Response to Vaccines

New studies find the type, number and diversity of bacteria could influence vaccine response rates for rotavirus, tetanus and more in kids

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Rotavirus used to infect most youngsters until a widely available oral vaccine came out in 2006. The virus, which causes severe diarrhea and thus life-threatening dehydration, still kills more than 450,000 kids globally every year, largely in Asia and Africa, because the vaccine is not always effective. Vanessa Harris of the University of Amsterdam wanted to find out why infants in those regions have such high rates of so-called nonresponders. Perhaps, she reasoned, the microbes that live in a child's large intestine played a role.

Harris and her colleagues, including collaborators in South Asia, studied 66 Pakistani infants and 66 matched Dutch control subjects, all of whom received the oral rotavirus vaccine. Most of the children in the Netherlands mounted the expected immune response, but only 10 of those in Pakistan did the same. A genetic scan of fecal samples taken from each infant before the vaccine revealed that the responders harbored a higher diversity of microbes in their intestinal tract. They also carried more organisms from the group Proteobacteria.

Many Proteobacteria propel themselves with the help of tail-like flagella. Those tails contain flagellin, a protein known to bolster immune cell activity. An abundance of such bacteria in the body could act as a natural immunity—and thus vaccine—booster, says Bali Pulendran, an immunologist at the Emory University School of Medicine, who was not involved in the study, which was presented in March at a Keystone Symposia meeting in Colorado.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Last year Pulendran and his colleagues demonstrated the role of flagellated bacteria in the success of the influenza vaccine. Mice living in a sterile environment that had no intestinal bacteria, as well as those inoculated with only nonflagellated bacteria, failed to raise antibodies after receiving the shot, rendering it useless. Normal mice and those inoculated with only flagellated bacteria, however, launched the typical, strong immune activity. A small follow-up human study by the team could soon reveal whether the same pattern shows up among people who have received three types of different broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Other microbial factors might also be at play. Research published in 2014 in Pediatrics showed that varying compositions of gut bacteria in Bangladeshi infants correlated with reactions to the tetanus, tuberculosis and oral polio vaccines. Taken together, these lines of research indicate that our body's native bacteria may help determine our individual immune response to vaccines. Whether the findings will eventually lead to microbiome screens or specially formulated probiotic supplements for ingestion prior to vaccination remains to be seen.

Still, a more thorough account of all the tiny organisms that live within us could help scientists make significant improvements in vaccine efficacy. And those small steps could save many thousands of lives.

Katherine Harmon Courage is an independent science journalist and contributing editor for Scientific American. She is author of Octopus! The Most Mysterious Creature in the Sea (Current, 2013) and Cultured: How Ancient Foods Feed Our Microbiome (Avery, 2019).

More by Katherine Harmon Courage
Scientific American Magazine Vol 312 Issue 6This article was published with the title “Our Personal Vaccine Helpers” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 312 No. 6 (), p. 22
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0615-22

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe