4.5 Review

Inactivation methods for whole influenza vaccine production

期刊

REVIEWS IN MEDICAL VIROLOGY
卷 29, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2074

关键词

formaldehyde; gamma-irradiation; influenza vaccine; low-energy electron irradiation; ultraviolet radiation; visible ultrashort pulsed laser; beta-propiolactone

类别

资金

  1. Pasteur Institute of Iran [1029]
  2. Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) [95830094]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite tremendous efforts toward vaccination, influenza remains an ongoing global threat. The induction of strain-specific neutralizing antibody responses is a common phenomenon during vaccination with the current inactivated influenza vaccines, so the protective effect of these vaccines is mostly strain-specific. There is an essential need for the development of next-generation vaccines, with a broad range of immunogenicity against antigenically drifted or shifted influenza viruses. Here, we evaluate the potential of whole inactivated vaccines, based on chemical and physical methods, as well as new approaches to generate cross-protective immune responses. We also consider the mechanisms by which some of these vaccines may induce CD8(+) T-cells cross-reactivity with different strains of influenza. In this review, we have focused on conventional and novel methods for production of whole inactivated influenza vaccine. As well as chemical modification, using formaldehyde or beta-propiolactone and physical manipulation by ultraviolet radiation or gamma-irradiation, novel approaches, including visible ultrashort pulsed laser, and low-energy electron irradiation are discussed. These two latter methods are considered to be attractive approaches to design more sophisticated vaccines, due to their ability to maintain most of the viral antigenic properties during inactivation and potential to produce cross-protective immunity. However, further studies are needed to validate them before they can replace traditional methods for vaccine manufacturing.

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

4.5
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