4.5 Article

Safety and efficacy in geese of a PER.C6-based inactivated West Nile virus vaccine

Journal

VACCINE
Volume 25, Issue 49, Pages 8338-8345

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.09.055

Keywords

PER.C6; mammalian cells; West Nile virus; vaccine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Studies were performed with an inactivated vaccine against the mosquito-borne flavivirus, West Nile virus (WNV). The mammalian cell line, PER.C6 (R), was selected as the platform for WNV growth since both the neurovirulent strains NY99 and ISR98 that cause epidemics in humans and high mortality in geese, respectively, could be propagated to high titers (10(9) to 10(10) TCID50/ml) on these cells. Based on the high DNA homology of the WNV envelope (E) protein and non-structural protein 5 (NS5), and identical neurovirulence in mice and geese, we concluded that NY99 and ISR98 viruses are closely related and therefore vaccine studies were performed with ISR98 as a model for NY99. A robust challenge model in domestic geese was set up resulting in 100% mortality within 7 days of intracranial challenge with 500 TCID50 WNV. Geese were used to assess the efficacy and safety of an inactivated WNV vaccine produced on PER.C6 (R) cells. Efficacy studies demonstrated 91.4% (53/58) protection of geese compared to no protection (0/13) in geese receiving a sham vaccine. A follow-up study in 1800 geese showed that the vaccine was safe with a survival rate of 96.6% (95% lower CL 95.7%). Initial studies on the correlates of protection induced by the vaccine indicate an important role for antibodies since geese were protected when injected intra-cranial with a mixture of serum from vaccinated, non-challenged geese and WNV. In all, these results provide a scientific basis for the development of an inactivated WNV vaccine based on NY99 produced on PER.C6 (R) cells for human and equine use. (C) 2007 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