4.6 Article

Newcastle Disease Virus-Like Particles Containing Respiratory Syncytial Virus G Protein Induced Protection in BALB/c Mice, with No Evidence of Immunopathology

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 84, 期 2, 页码 1110-1123

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01709-09

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Novavax Corporation
  2. National Institutes of Health [RO1 AI39576]
  3. JDRFI [24-2008-950]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of serious respiratory infections in children as well as a serious cause of disease in elderly and immunosuppressed populations. There are no licensed vaccines available to prevent RSV disease. We have developed a virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine candidate for protection from RSV. The VLP is composed of the NP and M proteins of Newcastle disease virus (NDV) and a chimeric protein containing the cytoplasmic and transmembrane domains of the NDV HN protein and the ectodomain of the human RSV G protein (H/G). Immunization of mice with 10 or 40 mu g total VLP-H/G protein by intraperitoneal or intramuscular inoculation stimulated antibody responses to G protein which were as good as or better than those stimulated by comparable amounts of UV-inactivated RSV. Immunization of mice with two doses or even a single dose of these particles resulted in the complete protection of mice from RSV replication in the lungs. Immunization with these particles induced neutralizing antibodies with modest titers. Upon RSV challenge of VLP-H/G-immunized mice, no enhanced pathology in the lungs was observed, although lungs of mice immunized in parallel with formalin-inactivated RSV (FI-RSV) showed the significant pathology that has previously been documented after immunization with FI-RSV. Thus, the VLP-H/G candidate vaccine was immunogenic in BALB/c mice and prevented replication of RSV in murine lungs, with no evidence of immunopathology. These data support further development of virus-like particle vaccine candidates for protection against RSV.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据