4.5 Article

Study on the protective efficacy of SA14-14-2 attenuated Japanese encephalitis against different JE virus isolates circulating in China

Journal

VACCINE
Volume 29, Issue 11, Pages 2127-2130

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.12.108

Keywords

Japanese encephalitis virus; Vaccine efficacy; Live attenuated vaccine

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2008BAI54B03]
  2. Ministry of Health [2009ZX10004-806]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Prior to 1976 only Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) genotype III could be detected in China. Recently, numerous genotype I JEV strains have been isolated from JE patients, mosquitoes and pigs while genotype III strains remain present. Two kinds of JEV vaccines are currently used in China for the prevention disease: the JE live attenuated vaccine (LAV) SA14-14-2 virus and the inactivated P3 strain (IPV) vaccine. The SA14-14-2 and P3 viral strains were isolated in the year of 1953 and 1949 respectively and both belonged to the JEV genotype III. In order to evaluate the protective efficacy of both vaccines against the JEV genotype I isolates we conducted vaccination-challenge protection assays in mice. These data demonstrated that both LAV (>= 234 pfu virus) and IPV (1:5 dilution) vaccines effectively conferred protection against all 16 isolates tested following intraperitoneal (i.p.) challenge. However, when vaccinated mice were challenged via intracerebral (i.c.) injection, >= 60% LAV vaccinated animals were protected against challenge with most JEV isolates but only <= 40% protection was observed following vaccination with IPV. These results indicated that JE vaccines used in China still protected effectively against both JEV genotypes now prevalent in China and that the LAV formulation conferred higher levels of protection compared to the protection conferred by IPV. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available