4.5 Article

Substitution of vaccinia virus Elstree by modified vaccinia virus Ankara to test the virucidal efficacy of chemical disinfectants

Journal

ZOONOSES AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 55, Issue 2, Pages 99-105

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2007.01094.x

Keywords

chemical disinfection; modified vaccinia virus Ankara; vaccinia virus Lister Elstree; DVG; RKI/DVV

Ask authors/readers for more resources

After the eradication of variola in 1980, the smallpox vaccination was considered to be no longer required and was subsequently abandoned mainly because of possible adverse effects of vaccinia virus especially in first-time vaccinees. Despite a growing number of humans without immunity against vaccinia. virus, vaccinia virus Lister Elstree (VACV) is still prescribed for testing virucidal efficacy of chemical disinfectants in the guidelines of the German Veterinary Medical Society [Deutsche Veterinarmedizinische Gesellschaft (DVG)], the German Association for the Control of Virus Diseases [Deutsche Vereinigung zur Bekampfung der Viruskrankheiten (DVV)] and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI). To evaluate a possible substitution of VACV, with the attenuated modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) the virucidal efficacy of four different DVG-listed commercially available chemical disinfectants representing different groups of chemicals was tested against these two viruses. Quantitative suspension tests and qualitative carrier tests with poplar wood and gauze were performed. Distinction of VACV and MVA was confirmed by cytopathogenic effects, such as differences in plaque morphology. No significant difference in disinfection efficacy between VACV and MVA was observed for any of the disinfectants tested. Implying that vaccinia virus poses a risk after inadvertent inoculation, our results show that MVA, which does not replicate in humans, should replace VACV in the chemical disinfectant testing guidelines.

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