4.4 Article

Comparison of the replication characteristics of vaccinia virus strains Guang 9 and Tian Tan in vivo and in vitro

Journal

ARCHIVES OF VIROLOGY
Volume 159, Issue 10, Pages 2587-2596

Publisher

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00705-014-2079-2

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science and Technology Major Project [2012ZX10004701-001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vaccinia virus is widely used as a vector in the development of recombinant vaccines. Vaccinia virus strain Guang 9 (VG9), which was derived from vaccinia virus strain Tian Tan (VTT) by successive plaque-cloning purification, was more attenuated than VTT. In this study, the host cell range and the growth and replication of VG9 were compared with those of VTT. The results showed that both VG9 and VTT could infect permissive cells (Vero, TK-143 and CEF) and semipermissive cells PK (15) and induced a visible cytopathic effect (CPE). Both strains could infect nonpermissive CHO-K1 cells but neither was able to reproduce. The replicative ability of VG9 was a little lower than that of VTT. Additionally, recombinant vaccinia viruses containing a firefly luciferase gene (VG9-L and VTT-L) were constructed, and their expression in vitro and replication and spread in vivo were compared. The expression ability of VG9-L was lower than that of VTT-L. Whole-animal imaging data indicated that VG9-L could reproduce quickly and express the exogenous protein at the site of inoculation, regardless of whether the intramuscular, intracutaneous, subcutaneous or celiac inoculation route was used. VG9-L was better in its ability to express a foreign protein than VTT-L, but the time during which expression occurred was shorter. There was no dissemination of virus in mice inoculated with either strain. In summary, this study demonstrates the possibility of using VG9 for the production of smallpox vaccines or the construction of recombinant vaccinia virus vaccines.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available